Dataset Information

Chest pain in the ambulance; prevalence, causes and outcome - a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chest pain is common in acute ambulance transports. This study aims to characterize and compare ambulance-transported chest pain patients to non-chest pain patients and evaluate if patient characteristics and accompanying symptoms accessible at the time of emergency call can predict cause and outcome in chest pain patients.

Methods

Retrospective, observational population-based study, including acute ambulance transports. Patient characteristics and symptoms are included in a multivariable risk model to identify characteristics, associated with being discharged without an acute cardiac diagnosis and surviving 30 days after chest pain event.

Results

In total, 10,033 of 61,088 (16.4%) acute ambulance transports were due to chest pain. In chest pain patients, 30-day mortality was 2.1% (95%CI 1.8-2.4) compared to 6.0% (95%CI 5.7-6.2) in non-chest pain patients. Of chest pain patients, 1054 (10.5%) were diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, and 5068 (50.5%) were discharged without any diagnosis of disease. This no-diagnosis group had very low 30-day mortality, 0.4% (95%CI 0.2-0.9). Female gender, younger age, chronic pulmonary disease, absence of accompanying symptoms of dyspnoea, radiation, severe pain for > 5 min, clammy skin, uncomfortable, and nausea were associated with being discharged without an acute cardiac diagnosis and surviving 30 days after a chest pain event.

Conclusion

Chest pain is a common reason for ambulance transport, but the majority of patients are discharged without a diagnosis and with a high survival rate. Early risk prediction seems to hold a potential for resource downgrading and thus cost-saving in selected chest pain patients.

SUBMITTER: Pedersen CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6716930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNot all children with an out-of-hospital emergency medical contact are transported by ambulance to the emergency department (ED). Non-transport means that after on-scene evaluation and possible treatment, ambulance personnel may advise the patient to monitor the situation at home or may refer the patient to seek medical attention by other means of transport. As selecting the right patients for ambulance transport is critical for optimising patient safety and resource use, we studied outcomes in non-transported children to identify possible risk groups that could benefit from ambulance transport.MethodsIn a population-based retrospective cohort study of all children aged 0-15?years encountered but not transported by ambulance in Helsinki, Finland, between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016, we evaluated (1) 12-month mortality, (2) intensive care admissions, (3) unscheduled ED contacts within the following 96?hours after the non-transport decision and (4) the clinical status of the child on presentation to ED in the case of a secondary ED visit.ResultsOf all children encountered by out-of-hospital emergency medical services, 3579/7765 (46%) were not transported to ED by ambulance. There was no mortality or intensive care admissions related to the non-transport. The risk factors for an unscheduled secondary ED visit after a non-transport decision were young age (p=0.001), non-transport decision during the early morning hours (p<0.001) and certain dispatch codes, including 'dyspnoea' (p<0.001), 'vomiting/diarrhoea' (p=0.030) and 'mental illness' (p=0.019). We did not detect deterioration in patients' clinical presentation at ED traceable to non-transport decisions.ConclusionsNot transporting all children by ambulance after an out-of-hospital emergency medical contact was not associated with deaths, intensive care admissions or significant deterioration in general condition in our study population and healthcare system. Special attention and a formal non-transport protocol are warranted in certain subgroups, including infants.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), an emerging virus, has caused a global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has led to high hospitalization rates worldwide. Little is known about the occurrence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and high mortality rates have been proposed. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcome of IHCA during the pandemic in comparison to an earlier period.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of data prospectively recorded during 3-month-periods 2019 and 2020 at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). All consecutive adult patients with IHCA were included. Clinical parameters, neurological outcomes and organ failure/support were assessed.ResultsDuring the study period hospital admissions declined from 18,262 (2019) to 13,994 (2020) (- 23%). The IHCA incidence increased from 4.6 (2019: 84 IHCA cases) to 6.6 (2020: 93 IHCA cases)/1000 hospital admissions. Median stay before IHCA was 4 (1-9) days. Demographic characteristics were comparable in both periods. IHCA location shifted towards the ICU (56% vs 37%, p < 0.01); shockable rhythm (VT/VF) (18% vs 29%, p = 0.05) and defibrillation were more frequent in the pandemic period (20% vs 35%, p < 0.05). Resuscitation times, rates of ROSC and post-CA characteristics were comparable in both periods. The severity of illness (SAPS II/SOFA), frequency of mechanical ventilation and frequency of vasopressor therapy after IHCA were higher during the 2020 period. Overall, 43 patients (12 with & 31 without COVID-19), presented with respiratory failure at the time of IHCA. The Horowitz index and resuscitation time were significantly lower in patients with COVID-19 (each p < 0.01). Favourable outcomes were observed in 42 and 10% of patients with and without COVID-19-related respiratory failure, respectively.ConclusionHospital admissions declined during the pandemic, but a higher incidence of IHCA was observed. IHCA in patients with COVID-19 was a common finding. Compared to patients with non-COVID-19-related respiratory failure, the outcome was improved.

Project description:Objective To ascertain long term cardiovascular outcomes in patients whose chest pain remained undiagnosed six months after first presentation.Design Cohort study.Setting UK electronic health record database (CALIBER) linking primary care, secondary care, coronary registry, and death registry information.Participants 172 180 adults aged ≥18 from 223 general practices presenting with a first episode of recorded chest pain, classified from medical records as diagnosed (non-coronary condition or angina) or undiagnosed (cause unattributed) at first consultation between 2002 and 2009 and with no previous record of cardiovascular disease.Main outcome measures Fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events over 5.5 years' follow-up. Adjustments were made for age, sex, deprivation, body mass index, smoking status, year of index presentation, and previous records of diabetes or hypertension or previous prescriptions for lipid lowering drugs.Results At the index presentation, 72.4% of patients (124 688) did not have a cause attributed for their chest pain; 118 687 (95.2%) of these did not receive any type of cardiovascular diagnosis over the next six months. Only a minority of patients in all three groups (non-coronary 2.0% (769 of 39 232); unattributed 11.7% (14 582 of 124 688); angina 31.5% (2606 of 8260)) had a recorded cardiac diagnostic investigation in the first six months after presentation. The long term incidence of cardiovascular events was higher in those whose chest pain remained unattributed after six months (5126 of 109 628; 4.7%) compared with patients with an initial diagnosis of non-coronary pain (1073 of 36 097; 3.0%) (adjusted hazard ratios for 0.5-1 year after presentation: 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.66 to 2.31; for 1-3 years: 1.35, 1.23 to 1.48); for 3-5.5 years: 1.21, 1.08 to 1.37). Owing to the larger number of patients in the unattributed group, there were more excess myocardial infarctions in the long term in this group (214 more than expected based on the rate in the non-coronary group) than in the angina group (132 more than expected). Patients who had cardiac diagnostic investigations in the first six months had a higher long term risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the initial chest pain label. Incidence of unattributed chest pain and angina decreased between 2002 (124 per 10 000 person years and 13 per 10 000 person years, respectively) and 2009 (107 per 10 000 person years and 5 per 10 000 person years, respectively), but the incidence of chest pain attributed to a non-coronary cause remained stable (37-40 per 10 000 person years). Risk of cardiovascular events did not change over time.Conclusions Most patients with first onset chest pain do not have a diagnosis recorded at presentation or in the subsequent six months, including those who undergo cardiac investigations. These patients have an increased risk of cardiovascular events for at least five years. Efforts to better assess and reduce the cardiovascular risk of such patients are warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.DesignRetrospective, cohort study.SettingRegional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands.ParticipantsConsecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain.Main outcome measuresDiscriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact.ResultsA total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates.ConclusionWhile available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Management of acute chest pain focuses on diagnosis or safe rule-out of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aim to determine the additional value of self-reported computerised history taking (CHT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Prospective cohort study design with self-reported, medical histories collected by a CHT programme (Clinical Expert Operating System, CLEOS) using a tablet. Women and men presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department at Danderyd University Hospital (Stockholm, Sweden) are eligible. CHT will be compared with standard history taking for completeness of data required to calculate ACS risk scores such as History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI). Clinical outcomes will be extracted from hospital electronic health records and national registries. The CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study project includes (1) a feasibility study of CHT, (2) a validation study of CHT as compared with standard history taking, (3) a paired diagnostic accuracy study using data from CHT and established risk scores, (4) a clinical utility study to evaluate the impact of CHT on the management of chest pain and the use of resources, and (5) data mining, aiming to generate an improved risk score for ACS. Primary outcomes will be analysed after 1000 patients, but to allow for subgroup analysis, the study intends to recruit 2000 or more patients. This ongoing project may lead to new and more effective ways for collecting thorough, accurate medical histories with important implications for clinical practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been reviewed and approved by the Stockholm Regional Ethical Committee (now Swedish Ethical Review Authority). Results will be published, regardless of the outcome, in peer-reviewed international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:This study is registered at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT03439449).

Project description:BackgroundFemales have historically lower rates of cardiovascular testing when compared to males. Clinical decision pathways (CDP) that utilize standardized risk-stratification methods may balance this disparity. We sought to determine whether clinical decision pathways could minimize sex-based differences in the non-invasive workup of chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Moreover, we evaluated whether the HEART score would minimize sex-based differences in risk-stratification.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort review of adult ED encounters for chest pain where CDP was employed. Primary outcome was any occurrence of non-invasive imaging (coronary CTA, stress imaging), invasive testing, intervention (PCI or CABG), or death. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). We stratified HEART scores and primary/secondary outcomes by sex.ResultsA total of 1078 charts met criteria for review. Mean age at presentation was 59 years. Females represented 47% of the population. Low, intermediate, and high-risk patients as determined by the HEART score were 17%, 65%, and 18% of the population, respectively, without any significant differences between males and females. Non-invasive testing was similar between males and females when stratified by risk. Males categorized as high risk underwent more coronary angiogram (33% vs. 16%, p = 0.01) and PCI (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.04) than high risk females, but this was not seen in patients categorized as low or intermediate risk. Males experienced more MACE than females (8% vs. 3%, p = 0.001).ConclusionsWe identified no sex-based differences in risk-stratification or non-invasive testing when the CDP was used. High risk males, however, underwent more coronary angiogram and PCI than high risk females, and consequently males experienced more overall MACE than females. This disparity may be explained by sex-based differences in the pathophysiology driving each patient's presentation.