American heart journal · 2011
Outcomes in patients with chest pain evaluated in a chest pain unit: the chest pain evaluation in the emergency room study cohort.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cullen Michael W, Reeder Guy S, Farkouh Michael E, Kopecky Stephen L, Smars Peter A, Behrenbeck Thomas R, Allison Thomas G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the long-term outcomes of patients who undergo evaluation in a chest pain unit (CPU).
METHODS: Our study included patients with chest pain at intermediate risk for acute cardiovascular events enrolled in the CHEER study. The primary outcome included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, stroke, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The secondary outcome included a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina. Data were obtained through a medical record review. We compared outcomes between groups randomized to the CPU versus admission, those admitted from the CPU versus dismissed home, and those who were admitted versus dismissed home after a cardiac stress test in the emergency department.
RESULTS: The final analysis included 407 patients. Median surveillance length was 5.5 years. No differences in the primary outcome or secondary outcome existed between patients randomized to the CPU versus admitted to hospital (21.6% vs 20.2% and 29.9% vs 33.0%, respectively, P > .05 for all comparisons). Patients admitted from the CPU had higher rates of the secondary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.26) than patients dismissed from the CPU. Patients admitted after a cardiac stress test in the CPU had higher rates of the secondary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.42) than patients dismissed from the CPU.
CONCLUSIONS: A CPU does not increase long-term adverse outcomes in patients with chest pain at intermediate risk for an acute event.
METHODS: Our study included patients with chest pain at intermediate risk for acute cardiovascular events enrolled in the CHEER study. The primary outcome included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, stroke, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The secondary outcome included a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, stroke, revascularization, and unstable angina. Data were obtained through a medical record review. We compared outcomes between groups randomized to the CPU versus admission, those admitted from the CPU versus dismissed home, and those who were admitted versus dismissed home after a cardiac stress test in the emergency department.
RESULTS: The final analysis included 407 patients. Median surveillance length was 5.5 years. No differences in the primary outcome or secondary outcome existed between patients randomized to the CPU versus admitted to hospital (21.6% vs 20.2% and 29.9% vs 33.0%, respectively, P > .05 for all comparisons). Patients admitted from the CPU had higher rates of the secondary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.26) than patients dismissed from the CPU. Patients admitted after a cardiac stress test in the CPU had higher rates of the secondary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 2.42) than patients dismissed from the CPU.
CONCLUSIONS: A CPU does not increase long-term adverse outcomes in patients with chest pain at intermediate risk for an acute event.