ArticleHerz2012
[The length of hospital stay in patients with acute coronary syndrome is reduced by establishing a chest pain unit].
Article in Herz, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Chest pain unit implementation in a multidisciplinary hospital: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- A longitudinal study on the information needs and preferences of patients after an acute coronary syndrome.BMC family practice · 2016Observational
- Disease distribution and outcome in troponin-positive patients with or without revascularization in a chest pain unit: results of the German CPU-Registry.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding prompt and appropriate therapy, combined with the increased economic requirements of treating patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), places high demands on the emergency department. The aim of the present analysis is to evaluate to what extent establishing a dedicated chest pain unit (CPU) influences the length of hospital stay in ACS patients.
methodsPatients presenting with suspected ACS between 05/2004 and 05/2006 to either the emergency department (ED) or the newly established CPU were retrospectively analyzed. The CPU became functional in July 2005. Data were obtained according to standardized procedures based on patient charts and all available clinical information.
resultsA total of 247 patients were treated in the ED and 765 in the CPU. In the ED patient group 29 (11.7%) were diagnosed with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 38 (15.4%) with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 15 (6.1%) with unstable angina pectoris (UAP), while ACS could be excluded in 165 (66.8%) patients. Patients treated in the CPU showed a higher percentage of ACS with 75 (9.8%) STEMI, 128 (16.7%) NSTEMI and 136 (17.8%) UAP patients; ACS could be excluded in 426 (55.7%) patients. The median length of hospital stay was shorter in ACS patients treated in the CPU at 5.0 days compared to 8.0 days if admitted to the ED (p<0.001). No difference in length of hospital stay was observed in UAP patients, whereas in STEMI patients admitted to the ED the time was longer at 8.0 days compared to 7.0 days if admitted to the CPU (p=0.042). A reduction from 8.0 to 6.0 days in the length of hospital stay if admitted to the CPU compared to the ED could be observed (p=0.002) in NSTEMI patients.
conclusionsEstablishing a chest pain unit with optimized diagnostic and structural processes is associated with reduced lengths of hospital stay in patients with ACS treated according to current guidelines and recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22051768What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.