BACKGROUND: Chest pain units (CPUs) are increasingly established in emergency cardiology services. With improved visibility of CPUs in the population, patients may refer themselves directly to these units, obviating emergency medical services (EMS). Little is known about characteristics and outcomes of self-referred patients, as compared with those referred by EMS. Therefore, we described self-referral patients enrolled in the CPU-registry of the German Cardiac Society and compared them with those referred by EMS. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2008 until 2010, the prospective CPU-registry enrolled 11,581 consecutive patients. Of those 3789 (32.7%) were self-referrals (SRs), while 7792 (67.3%) were referred by EMS. SR-patients were significantly younger (63.6 vs. 70.1 years), had less prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass surgery, but more previous percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Acute coronary syndromes were diagnosed less frequently in the SR-patients (30.3 vs. 46.9%; p<0.0001). SR-patients showed ST-segment changes in their initial ECG in 19.6% of cases. EMS-patients underwent more coronary angiographies (60.0 vs. 47.5%; p<0.0001), while SR-patients underwent more stress tests (11.3 vs. 7.8%; p<0.001). PCI was performed in 32.6% of the EMS- and in 24.0% of the SR-group (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that patients who contact a CPU as a self-referral are younger, less severely ill and have more non-coronary problems than those calling an emergency medical service. Nevertheless, 30% of self-referral patients had an acute coronary syndrome.
BACKGROUND:Chest pain units (CPUs) are increasingly established in emergency cardiology services. With improved visibility of CPUs in the population, patients may refer themselves directly to these units, obviating emergency medical services (EMS). Little is known about characteristics and outcomes of self-referred patients, as compared with those referred by EMS. Therefore, we described self-referral patients enrolled in the CPU-registry of the German Cardiac Society and compared them with those referred by EMS. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2008 until 2010, the prospective CPU-registry enrolled 11,581 consecutive patients. Of those 3789 (32.7%) were self-referrals (SRs), while 7792 (67.3%) were referred by EMS. SR-patients were significantly younger (63.6 vs. 70.1 years), had less prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery bypass surgery, but more previous percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Acute coronary syndromes were diagnosed less frequently in the SR-patients (30.3 vs. 46.9%; p<0.0001). SR-patients showed ST-segment changes in their initial ECG in 19.6% of cases. EMS-patients underwent more coronary angiographies (60.0 vs. 47.5%; p<0.0001), while SR-patients underwent more stress tests (11.3 vs. 7.8%; p<0.001). PCI was performed in 32.6% of the EMS- and in 24.0% of the SR-group (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that patients who contact a CPU as a self-referral are younger, less severely ill and have more non-coronary problems than those calling an emergency medical service. Nevertheless, 30% of self-referral patients had an acute coronary syndrome.
Authors: Michael W Cullen; Guy S Reeder; Michael E Farkouh; Stephen L Kopecky; Peter A Smars; Thomas R Behrenbeck; Thomas G Allison Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Meredith Edwards; Anna Marie Chang; Asako C Matsuura; Michael Green; Jennifer M Robey; Judd E Hollander Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Aileen P McGinn; Wayne D Rosamond; David C Goff; Herman A Taylor; J Shawn Miles; Lloyd Chambless Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: A L Brown; N C Mann; M Daya; R Goldberg; H Meischke; J Taylor; K Smith; S Osganian; L Cooper Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-07-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robin Mathews; Eric D Peterson; Shuang Li; Matthew T Roe; Seth W Glickman; Stephen D Wiviott; Jorge F Saucedo; Elliott M Antman; Alice K Jacobs; Tracy Y Wang Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Henry H Ting; Elizabeth H Bradley; Yongfei Wang; Judith H Lichtman; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Mark D Sullivan; Bernard J Gersh; Veronique L Roger; Jeptha P Curtis; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-05-12
Authors: Caroline B Hutchings; N Clay Mann; Mohamud Daya; Jon Jui; Robert Goldberg; Lawton Cooper; David C Goff; Carol Cornell Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: F Breuckmann; F Remberg; D Böse; M Lichtenberg; P Kümpers; H Pavenstädt; J Waltenberger; D Fischer Journal: Herz Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Felix Post; Tommaso Gori; Evangelos Giannitsis; Harald Darius; Stephan Baldus; Christian Hamm; Rainer Hambrecht; Hans Martin Hofmeister; Hugo Katus; Stefan Perings; Jochen Senges; Thomas Münzel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 5.460