ArticlePloS one
Feasibility and Safety of Evaluating Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Disease Using an Accelerated Diagnostic Algorithm in a Chest Pain Unit.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An accelerated diagnostic protocol for evaluating low-risk patients with acute chest pain in a cardiologist-based chest pain unit (CPU) is widely employed today. However, limited data exist regarding the feasibility of such an algorithm for patients with a history of prior coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of the current study was to assess the feasibility and safety of evaluating patients with a history of prior CAD using an accelerated diagnostic protocol. We evaluated 1,220 consecutive patients presenting with acute chest pain and hospitalized in our CPU. Patients were stratified according to whether they had a history of prior CAD or not. The primary composite outcome was defined as a composite of readmission due to chest pain, acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, or death during a 60-day follow-up period. Overall, 268 (22%) patients had a history of prior CAD. Non-invasive evaluation was performed in 1,112 (91%) patients. While patients with a history of prior CAD had more comorbidities, the two study groups were similar regarding hospitalization rates (9% vs. 13%, p = 0.08), coronary angiography (13% vs. 11%, p = 0.41), and revascularization (6.5% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.8) performed during CPU evaluation. At 60-days the primary endpoint was observed in 12 (1.6%) and 6 (3.2%) patients without and with a history of prior CAD, respectively (p = 0.836). No mortalities were recorded. To conclude, Patients with a history of prior CAD can be expeditiously and safely evaluated using an accelerated diagnostic protocol in a CPU with outcomes not differing from patients without such a history.
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.