Title of article :
Comparison of two diagnostic protocols in the management of possible cardiac chest pain: One follow-up study in Iran
Author/Authors :
Heidari, Kamran Skull Base Research Center - Loghman Hakim Medical Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran , Asghari Arani, Mahbube Department of Internal Medicine - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran , Sheibani, Mehdi Cardiovascular Research Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,Tehran , Pickering, John W Emergency Department - Christchurch Hospital and Department of Medicine - University of Otago Christchurch, New Zealand , Chouhdari, Arezoo Skull Base Research Center - Loghman Hakim Medical Center - Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Abstract :
Background: Chest pain indicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) accounts for
approximately 5-10% of presents in the emergency departments (EDs). Rapid decision
making is very important because longer hospital stay is associated with higher financial
burden. The aim of this study was to compare current practice with a 2-hour accelerated
diagnostic protocol (ADP) to manage chest pain in patients suspected to have ACS.
Methods: This is a longitudinal follow-up study on 900 patients with negative troponin
measured on entrance to the ED and initially low-risk for myocardial infarction according
to the emergency department of chest pain assessment score (EDACS) at the Loghman
Hakim Hospital, Tehran, Iran in 2018. Patients were divided in two groups (based on odd or
even days at admission time) at a ratio of 2:1 (i) current protocol with a second troponin
measuring after 6 hours and (ii) ADP with a second troponin measured after 2 hours. Major
adverse cardiac events (MACE) associated factors assessed in two groups over 30-days.
Results: Totally, the rate of return to EDs with the major adverse cardiac events was 4%
(n=24) in the current protocol group and 1% (n=1) in the ADP group within 30 days. The
odds ratio for MACE in 30 days in the current protocol was 4.3 times more than ADP group
(95% CI: 1.28-14.56, OR: 4.33, p:0.02). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, this
estimation for the current protocol was 4.10 times more than comparison group (95% CI:
1.23-13.81, OR: 4.10, p:0.01).
Conclusion: A 2-hour ADP in patients at low-risk for myocardial infarction by EDACS had
fewer adverse follow-up events than the current protocol.
Keywords :
Protocols , Management , Chest pain , Acute coronary syndrome
Journal title :
Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine (CJIM)