ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2026
The impact of follow-up care for patients presenting with non-typical chest pain at the emergency department.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- More than numbers: survival, symptoms, and what care triggers.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFailure to identify the underlying cause of chest pain in patients presenting to the cardiac emergency department (ED) poses a significant health and economic challenge. Non-typical chest pain in patients without a history of cardiovascular disease often leads to uncertainty regarding appropriate follow-up care. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does outpatient follow-up consultation with a cardiologist impact recurrent cardiac ED visits and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with non-typical chest pain and no prior cardiovascular history? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 429 patients presenting to the cardiac ED with non-typical chest pain and no history of cardiovascular disease. Of these, 213 patients (49.7%) received follow-up consultations with a cardiologist within three months of their index ED visit. We compared rates of recurrent (cardiac) ED visits, MACCE, and healthcare resource utilization during a one-year follow-up between patients who received follow-up consultations and those who did not.
resultsPatients with follow-up consultations had a significantly higher rate of revisits to the cardiac ED (13.6% vs. 5.1%) during the one-year follow-up period. There was no significant difference in MACCE between the two groups. Additionally, follow-up consultations were associated with an increase in healthcare resource utilization, including specialized cardiac tests.
conclusionThis study highlights the potential drawbacks of routine follow-up consultations in this patient population and calls for further prospective research to validate these findings.
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.