ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
Identification of chest pain patients appropriate for an emergency department observation unit.
Abstract
There are no perfect tests or algorithms to exclude ACI. Because acute coronary occlusion
often occurs in patients with low-grade coronary stenosis, the diagnostic goal of
a chest pain diagnostic protocol is not to identify patients with CAD, but rather
to identify patients who may be safely discharged home without the development of
complications such as MI, unstable angina, death, shock, or CHF over the next 1 to
6 months. There is an advantage to evaluating patients at the time of their symptoms.
Patients who have a small plaque that is ruptured, leading to intracoronary thrombosis
and ischemia, will manifest ischemia on diagnostic testing that could missed in routine
outpatient testing when their plaque were stable. The diagnosis and risk stratification
of acute coronary ischemia in the ED depends on a careful history and interpretation
of the ECG. Multiple regression models using readily available data (e.g., history,
physical examination, and ECG) provide the best tools for risk stratification. If
one is deciding how to select patients for an EDOU chest pain evaluation, diagnostic
tools that have previously been tested and validated in this setting are preferable.
These include the Multicenter Chest Pain Study derived tools (i.e., Goldman, Lee),
the ACI and ACI-TIPI tools, and sestamibi risk stratification tools. This is not to
say that other tools may not play a role at individual institutions. It is probably
better to select a consistent approach and evaluate its performance, rather than to
allow random variation to dictate practice. The future direction probably will involve
standardization of the ED chest pain population. This allows outcome and cost-effectiveness
comparative research of various strategies for patients with normal or nondiagnostic
ECGs and normal biomarkers. Although this approach allows more precise stratification,
the risk will never be zero, meaning that there will never be a substitute for good
clinical judgment and close follow-up care.
Type
Journal articleSubject
HumansCoronary Disease
Chest Pain
Treatment Outcome
Risk Assessment
Emergency Medicine
Observation
Clinical Competence
Emergency Service, Hospital
Hospital Units
United States
Female
Male
Guidelines as Topic
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/26220Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1016/s0733-8627(05)70167-xPublication Info
Wilkinson, K; & Severance, H (2001). Identification of chest pain patients appropriate for an emergency department observation
unit. Emergency medicine clinics of North America, 19(1). pp. 35-66. 10.1016/s0733-8627(05)70167-x. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/26220.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Harry Wells Severance Jr.
Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine
Site Principle Investigator: PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation
of Chest Pain (PROMISE) prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trial:Principle
Investigator - Duke E.D. Site - "Speed" Study. Pilot phase of Gusto IV. Investigating
Abciximab (a GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor) in combination with rapid access to cardiac cath.
Funded through Duke Clinical Research Institute. Multi-center trial. Principle Investigator
- Project: proposed mechanisms for af

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info