Safety, feasibility, and results of exercise testing for stratifying patients with chest pain in the emergency room

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, feasibility, and the results of early exercise testing in patients with chest pain admitted to the emergency room of the chest pain unit, in whom acute myocardial infarction and high-risk unstable angina had been ruled out. METHODS: A study including 1060 consecutive patients with chest pain admitted to the emergency room of the chest pain unit was carried out. Of them, 677 (64%) patients were eligible for exercise testing, but only 268 (40%) underwent the test. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients studied was 51.7±12.1 years, and 188 (70%) were males. Twenty-eight (10%) patients had a previous history of coronary artery disease, 244 (91%) had a normal or unspecific electrocardiogram, and 150 (56%) underwent exercise testing within a 12-hour interval. The results of the exercise test in the latter group were as follows: 34 (13%) were positive, 191 (71%) were negative, and 43 (16%) were inconclusive. In the group of patients with a positive exercise test, 21 (62%) underwent coronary angiography, 11 underwent angioplasty, and 2 underwent myocardial revascularization. In a univariate analysis, type A/B chest pain (definitely/probably anginal) (p<0.0001), previous coronary artery disease (p<0.0001), and route 2 (patients at higher risk) correlated with a positive or inconclusive test (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: In patients with chest pain and in whom acute myocardial infarction and high-risk unstable angina had been ruled out, the exercise test proved to be feasible, safe, and well tolerated

Chest pain in the emergency room. Importance of a systematic approach

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of a systematic diagnostic approach in patients with chest pain in the emergency room in relation to the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the rate of hospitalization in high-cost units. METHODS: One thousand and three consecutive patients with chest pain were screened according to a pre-established process of diagnostic investigation based on the pre-test probability of ACS determinate by chest pain type and ECG changes. RESULTS: Of the 1003 patients, 224 were immediately discharged home because of no suspicion of ACS (route 5) and 119 were immediately transferred to the coronary care united because of ST elevation or left bundle-branch block (LBBB) (route 1) (74% of these had a final diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction [AMI]). Of the 660 patients that remained in the emergency room under observation, 77 (12%) had AMI without ST segment elevation and 202 (31%) had unstable angina (UA). In route 2 (high probability of ACS) 17% of patients had AMI and 43% had UA, whereas in route 3 (low probability) 2% had AMI and 7 % had UA. The admission ECG has been confirmed as a poor sensitivity test for the diagnosis of AMI ( 49%), with a positive predictive value considered only satisfactory (79%). CONCLUSION: A systematic diagnostic strategy, as used in this study, is essential in managing patients with chest pain in the emergency room in order to obtain high diagnostic accuracy, lower cost, and optimization of the use of coronary care unit beds

Efficacy of a diagnostic strategy for patients with chest pain and no ST-segment elevation in the emergency room

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a systematic model of care for patients with chest pain and no ST segment elevation in the emergency room. METHODS: From 1003 patients submitted to an algorithm diagnostic investigation by probability of acute ischemic syndrome. We analyzed 600 ones with no elevation of ST segment, then enrolled to diagnostic routes of median (route 2) and low probability (route 3) to ischemic syndrome. RESULTS: In route 2 we found 17% acute myocardial infarction and 43% unstable angina, whereas in route 3 the rates were 2% and 7%, respectively. Patients with normal/non--specific ECG had 6% probability of AMI whereas in those with negative first CKMB it was 7%; the association of the 2 data only reduced it to 4%. In patients in route 2 the diagnosis of AMI could only be ruled out with serial CKMB measurement up to 9 hours, while in route 3 it could be done in up to 3 hours. Thus, sensitivity and negative predictive value of admission CKMB for AMI were 52% and 93%, respectively. About one-half of patients with unstable angina did not disclose objective ischemic changes on admission. CONCLUSION: The use of a systematic model of care in patients with chest pain offers the opportunity of hindering inappropriate release of patients with ACI and reduces unnecessary admissions. However some patients even with normal ECG should not be released based on a negative first CKMB. Serial measurement of CKMB up to 9 hours is necessary in patients with medium probability of AMI