首页> 外文期刊>Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology >Differences in diagnostic evaluation and clinical outcomes in the care of patients with chest pain based on admitting service: the benefits of a dedicated chest pain unit.
【24h】

Differences in diagnostic evaluation and clinical outcomes in the care of patients with chest pain based on admitting service: the benefits of a dedicated chest pain unit.

机译:基于入院服务的胸痛患者的诊断评估和临床结果差异:专用胸痛病房的益处。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is one of the most common complaints of patients presenting at emergency departments. However, the most appropriate diagnostic evaluation for patients with chest pain but without acute coronary syndrome remains controversial, and differs greatly among institutions and physicians. At our institution, patients with chest pain can be admitted to an internist-run hospitalist service, a private attending service, or a cardiologist-run Chest Pain Unit. The goal of the present study was to compare the management and outcomes of patients admitted with chest pain based on admitting service. METHODS: The charts of 750 patients (250 consecutive patients per service) with a discharge diagnosis of chest pain were studied retrospectively. RESULTS: Patients admitted to the Chest Pain Unit were younger and had a lower prevalence of known coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes, but a similar prevalence of other risk factors compared with the other groups. Sixty percent of the patientsin the Chest Pain Unit underwent stress myocardial perfusion imaging as their primary diagnostic modality (vs 22% and 12% of patients in the hospitalist and private services, respectively; P < .001). In contrast, 35% of the patients admitted to the hospitalist service underwent rest echocardiography (vs 8% and 17% of patients in the Chest Pain Unit and private services, respectively; P < .001). Finally, 47% of the patients in the private service underwent coronary angiography as their primary diagnostic modality (vs 6% and 10% of patients in the Chest Pain Unit and hospitalist services, respectively; P < .001). The length of stay was shortest for patients in the Chest Pain Unit (1.4 +/- 1.2 days vs 3.9 +/- 3.4 days and 3.5 +/- 3.6 days in the hospitalist and private services, respectively; P < .001), even when corrected for patient age and number of risk factors. Readmission within 6 months was lowest for patients in the Chest Pain Unit (4.4% vs 17.6% and 15.2% in the hospitalist and private services, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that a highly protocolized chest pain unit, using myocardial perfusion imaging as primary diagnostic modality, results in a decreased length of stay and readmission rate.
机译:背景:胸痛是急诊科患者最常见的主诉之一。但是,对于有胸痛但无急性冠脉综合征的患者的最合适的诊断评估仍存在争议,并且各机构和医生之间存在很大差异。在我们的机构中​​,患有胸痛的患者可以入住由内科医生办的医院服务,私人护理服务或由心脏病专家办的胸痛病房。本研究的目的是根据入院服务来比较胸痛患者的治疗和转归。方法:回顾性分析了750例出院诊断为胸痛的患者(每次服务连续250例患者)的病历。结果:进入胸痛病房的患者年龄较小,已知冠状动脉疾病,高血压或糖尿病的患病率较低,但其他危险因素的患病率与其他人群相似。胸痛病房的患者中有60%接受了压力心肌灌注显像作为其主要诊断方式(分别比起医院和私人服务部门的患者分别为22%和12%; P <.001)。相比之下,入院就诊的患者中有35%接受了静息超声心动图检查(分别比胸痛病房和私人服务部门的患者分别高8%和17%; P <.001)。最后,私人服务部门中47%的患者接受了冠状动脉造影作为其主要诊断手段(分别比胸痛科和住院服务部门的患者分别高6%和10%; P <.001)。即使是胸痛病房的患者,住院时间最短(分别为1.4 +/- 1.2天和3.9 +/- 3.4天,而3.5 +/- 3.6天在医院和私人服务机构中; P <.001),甚至在针对患者年龄和危险因素数量进行校正时。胸痛病房患者6个月内的再入院率最低(医院和私人服务部门分别为4.4%,17.6%和15.2%; P <.001)。结论:这项研究的结果表明,以心肌灌注成像为主要诊断手段的高度协议化的胸痛单元可减少住院时间和再入院率。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号