Browsing by Author "Pettit, Kate"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparing the effectiveness of existing anxiety treatment options among patients evaluated for chest pain and anxiety in the emergency department setting: Study protocol for the PACER pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial
    (Elsevier, 2023-01) Connors, Jill Nault; Kroenke, Kurt; Monahan, Patrick; Chernyak, Yelena; Pettit, Kate; Hayden, Julie; Montgomery, Chet; Brenner, George; Millard, Michael; Holmes, Emily; Musey, Paul; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    ackground Anxiety disorders are a common underlying cause of symptoms among low-risk chest pain patients evaluated in the emergency department setting. However, anxiety is often undiagnosed and undertreated in any setting, and causes considerable functional impairment to work, family, and social life. Objectives The Patient-Centered Treatment of Anxiety after Low-Risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Room (PACER) study is a pragmatic randomized trial to test the comparative effectiveness of existing anxiety treatments of graduated intensities and determine what options work best for patient subgroups based on anxiety severity and other comorbidities. Methods The PACER trial will enroll 375 emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain and anxiety (GAD-7 score ≥ 8) and randomize them to either: 1) referral to primary care with enhanced care coordination, 2) online self-administered cognitive behavioral therapy with guided peer support, or 3) therapist-administered cognitive behavior therapy. Outcomes include anxiety symptoms (primary) as well as physical symptom burden, depression symptoms, functional impairment, ED recidivism, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events. Statistical analyses will be conducted primarily using linear mixed models to perform a repeated measures analysis of patient-reported outcomes, assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Discussion PACER is an innovative and pragmatic clinical trial that will compare the effectiveness of several evidence-based telecare-delivered treatments for anxiety. Results have the potential to inform clinical guidelines for evaluation and management of low-risk chest pain patients and promote adoption of findings in ED departments across the country.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Venous Thromboembolism and D-dimer In Patients with COVID-19
    (Indiana Medical Student Program for Research and Scholarship (IMPRS), 2020-12-15) Hoffer, Joshua; Stewart, Lauren; Pettit, Kate; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Department of Emergency Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Background and Hypothesis: The potential association between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and COVID-19 is an area of growing research, and methods of effective prophylaxis, detection, and treatment continue to be sought. D-dimer assays have been previously established as a highly sensitive — albeit nonspecific — test to assess patient risk of VTE, but the full clinical utility of this test in COVID-19 patients is currently not well understood. We hypothesized that, in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) and determined to be positive for COVID-19, an elevated D-dimer value is associated with an increased 30-day incidence of VTE.  Project Methods: Deidentified patient encounter data was collected and analyzed from a multicenter registry of ED patients tested for SARS-CoV-2. We measured the frequency of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and compared the incidence of VTE between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients. We also compared average D-dimer values in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with and without VTE.  Results: Of 6,445 patient encounters queried, 2,051 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (32%).  SARS-CoV-2 positive patients had a significantly higher incidence of VTE in the 30-day follow-up period compared to SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (3.2 vs. 1.6%, p= 0.0002). D-dimer values were available for 537 of these SARS-CoV-2 patients, with an average D-dimer of 1813.83 ng/mL. The average D-dimer in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients who did develop VTE tended to be higher than those who did not develop VTE (2969 ng/mL vs. 1822 ng/mL), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.34). The fitted areas for binomial receiver operating characteristic curves of D-dimer for detection of VTE in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 were 0.628 and 0.829, respectively. Conclusion and Potential Impact: We found a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to be associated with a higher incidence of VTE. However, an elevated D-dimer continues to be nonspecific for VTE in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, and performs more poorly in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients than in negative patients. Additional clinical criteria should be identified to further guide the use of diagnostic imaging modalities and prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients with suspicion of VTE.