ArticleCritical pathways in cardiology2012
Design and implementation of a stand-alone chest pain evaluation center within an academic emergency department.
Article in Critical pathways in cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimates of radiation exposure and subsequent risk of malignancy due to cardiac imaging in the emergency department for evaluation of chest pain: a cohort study.Coronary artery disease · 2019Article
- Utility of the Diamond-Forrester Classification in Stratifying Acute Chest Pain in an Academic Chest Pain Center.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2016Observational
- Prevalence and Overlap of Noncardiac Conditions in the Evaluation of Low-risk Acute Chest Pain Patients.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2015Article
- Diagnostic yield of routine noninvasive cardiovascular testing in low-risk acute chest pain patients.The American journal of cardiology · 2015Article
- Prevalence and implications of severe anxiety in a prospective cohort of acute chest pain patients.Critical pathways in cardiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chest pain is a common presenting symptom for emergency department (ED) patients; however, a thorough cardiac evaluation can be difficult to complete within the ED setting. Implementation of a stand-alone unit for the evaluation of chest pain may improve care for patients with chest pain. We designed a protocol for identifying patients without an acute coronary syndrome and with low-to-intermediate likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). These patients were monitored in a stand-alone chest pain evaluation center (CPEC) staffed with a small group of providers and tested for CAD, if necessary. In the first 6 weeks of operation, 181 patients were evaluated in the CPEC. The prevalence of CAD risk factors was low. Of the 181 patients, 159 (88%) were discharged home and 22 (12%) required admission to the hospital for further care. We compared the number of chest pain evaluations and admissions for first 6 weeks of operation to the same 6-week period from the 2 previous years. Whereas ED chest pain evaluations increased 66% over the 2-year time frame, the proportion admitted to the hospital decreased from 53% to 42% (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, evidence-based evaluation of chest pain in patients without acute coronary syndrome and with low-to-intermediate likelihood of obstructive CAD can result in the significant majority of patients being discharged from the ED. Creation of a stand-alone CPEC in an academic hospital was associated with a significant reduction in hospital admissions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.