ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2023
Snapshot of suspected acute coronary syndrome assessment processes in the emergency department: A national cross-sectional survey.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2023. 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, 2 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Snapshot of Suspected ACS Assessment (SSAASY) study aims to describe the assessment processes for patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Australian EDs, and to compare these processes with the National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (NHFA/CSANZ) guidelines.
methodsBetween March and May 2021, a cross-sectional survey of Australian EDs was undertaken to investigate the assessment strategies used within the ED. All public and private hospitals identified as having dedicated EDs were invited to participate. Respondents provided data on hospital, ED and cardiac service characteristics. They also provided data on the risk stratification process recommended within their department (risk scores, troponin testing, objective testing for coronary artery disease). Awareness of the NHFA/CSANZ guidelines was assessed.
resultsResponses were received from 109/162 departments (67%). Most sites (n = 100, 92%) reported using dedicated protocols developed by ED clinicians that included risk stratification scores. Highly sensitive troponin assays were used at 103 (94%) sites. Serial troponin testing was performed over 2 h for low-risk patients in 53 (49%) sites and 2-3 h for intermediate and high-risk patients in 74 (68%) sites. Further investigations included exercise stress tests (48%) and stress echocardiography (38%), with 45% of sites ordering outpatient investigations.
conclusionsThe SSAASY study reported the strategies used to assess suspected ACS. In line with current NHFA/CSANZ guidelines, highly sensitive troponin assays are widely utilised. However, serial sampling intervals were longer than guideline recommendations, suggesting a translational gap between guidelines and clinical practice.
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.