Literature DB >> 20660809

Testing of low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Ezra A Amsterdam, J Douglas Kirk, David A Bluemke, Deborah Diercks, Michael E Farkouh, J Lee Garvey, Michael C Kontos, James McCord, Todd D Miller, Anthony Morise, L Kristin Newby, Frederick L Ruberg, Kristine Anne Scordo, Paul D Thompson.   

Abstract

The management of low-risk patients presenting to emergency departments is a common and challenging clinical problem entailing 8 million emergency department visits annually. Although a majority of these patients do not have a life-threatening condition, the clinician must distinguish between those who require urgent treatment of a serious problem and those with more benign entities who do not require admission. Inadvertent discharge of patients with acute coronary syndrome from the emergency department is associated with increased mortality and liability, whereas inappropriate admission of patients without serious disease is neither indicated nor cost-effective. Clinical judgment and basic clinical tools (history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram) remain primary in meeting this challenge and affording early identification of low-risk patients with chest pain. Additionally, established and newer diagnostic methods have extended clinicians' diagnostic capacity in this setting. Low-risk patients presenting with chest pain are increasingly managed in chest pain units in which accelerated diagnostic protocols are performed, comprising serial electrocardiograms and cardiac injury markers to exclude acute coronary syndrome. Patients with negative findings usually complete the accelerated diagnostic protocol with a confirmatory test to exclude ischemia. This is typically an exercise treadmill test or a cardiac imaging study if the exercise treadmill test is not applicable. Rest myocardial perfusion imaging has assumed an important role in this setting. Computed tomography coronary angiography has also shown promise in this setting. A negative accelerated diagnostic protocol evaluation allows discharge, whereas patients with positive findings are admitted. This approach has been found to be safe, accurate, and cost-effective in low-risk patients presenting with chest pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20660809      PMCID: PMC3044644          DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181ec61df

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  169 in total

Review 1.  Echocardiography in the evaluation of patients in chest pain units.

Authors:  William R Lewis
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.213

2.  Application of the TIMI risk score for unstable angina and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to an unselected emergency department chest pain population.

Authors:  Charles V Pollack; Frank D Sites; Frances S Shofer; Keara L Sease; Judd E Hollander
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2005-12-19       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Myocardial contrast echocardiography versus Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction score in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and a nondiagnostic electrocardiogram.

Authors:  Khim Leng Tong; Sanjiv Kaul; Xin-Qun Wang; Diana Rinkevich; Saul Kalvaitis; Todd Belcik; Wolfgang Lepper; William A Foster; Kevin Wei
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Two-dimensional echocardiography and infarct size: relationship of regional wall motion and thickening to the extent of myocardial infarction in the dog.

Authors:  A N Lieberman; J L Weiss; B I Jugdutt; L C Becker; B H Bulkley; J G Garrison; G M Hutchins; C A Kallman; M L Weisfeldt
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Evaluation of technician supervised treadmill exercise testing in a cardiac chest pain clinic.

Authors:  G Davis; S Ortloff; A Reed; G Worthington; D Roberts
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.994

6.  The limited utility of routine cardiac stress testing in emergency department chest pain patients younger than 40 years.

Authors:  Luke K Hermann; Scott D Weingart; W Lane Duvall; Milena J Henzlova
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 5.721

7.  Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion 99m-technetium-sestamibi SPECT in the elderly.

Authors:  Ronaldo S L Lima; Andrea De Lorenzo; Mauricio R Pantoja; Aristarco Siqueira
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction; A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of patients with acute myocardial infarction).

Authors:  Elliott M. Antman; Daniel T. Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R. Bates; Lee A. Green; Mary Hand; Judith S. Hochman; Harlan M. Krumholz; Frederick G. Kushner; Gervasio A. Lamas; Charles J. Mullany; Joseph P. Ornato; David L. Pearle; Michael A. Sloan; Sidney C. Smith; Joseph S. Alpert; Jeffrey L. Anderson; David P. Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J. Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L. Halperin; Loren F. Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K. Jacobs; Joseph P. Ornato
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-08-04       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Prehospital-initiated vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy. The Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Trial.

Authors:  W D Weaver; M Cerqueira; A P Hallstrom; P E Litwin; J S Martin; P J Kudenchuk; M Eisenberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-09-08       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging in the emergency room evaluation of chest pain.

Authors:  T C Hilton; R C Thompson; H J Williams; R Saylors; H Fulmer; S A Stowers
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  138 in total

1.  A follow-up report card on computer-assisted diagnosis--the grade: C+.

Authors:  Craig A Umscheid; C William Hanson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Acute chest pain of uncertain etiology, the short and long view.

Authors:  Frans J Th Wackers
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Patient-centered imaging.

Authors:  E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 4.  Stress CT perfusion: coupling coronary anatomy with physiology.

Authors:  Edward A Hulten; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Brian Ghoshhajra; Ron Blankstein
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  The potential role for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography for the acute chest pain patient in the emergency department.

Authors:  Sean R Wilson; James K Min
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  The potential role for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography for the acute chest pain patient in the emergency department: a cautionary viewpoint.

Authors:  Robert Hendel; Naim Dahdah
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Comparative efficiency of exercise stress testing with and without stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with low-risk chest pain.

Authors:  Jossef Amirian; Omid Javdan; Jason Misher; Joseph Diamond; Christopher Raio; Gary Rudolph; Regina S Druz
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  Chest pain: coronary CT in the ER.

Authors:  Erica Maffei; Sara Seitun; Andrea I Guaricci; Filippo Cademartiri
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Stress myocardial perfusion imaging for the evaluation and triage of chest pain in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Swee Han Lim; Venkataraman Anantharaman; Felix Sundram; Edwin Shih-Yen Chan; Ee Sin Ang; Sui Lan Yo; Edward Jacob; Anthony Goh; Say Beng Tan; Terrance Chua
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 10.  Risk factors assessment and risk prediction models in lung cancer screening candidates.

Authors:  Mariusz Adamek; Ewa Wachuła; Sylwia Szabłowska-Siwik; Agnieszka Boratyn-Nowicka; Damian Czyżewski
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.