scholarly journals Management of Non-STEMI and suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Jonas Eichhöfer ◽  
◽  
Cara Hendry ◽  
Douglas Fraser ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Common Complaint ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Chest pain is a common complaint of patients presenting to the Emergency Department, but there is a wide variety of underlying causes. These include ischaemic chest pain (acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable angina), non-ischaemic cardiovascular chest pain (aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, pericarditis) and a wide variety of non cardiovascular causes (musculoskeletal, psychiatric and gastrointestinal causes).

Chest pain and chest pain units

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Durand ◽  
Aurès Chaib ◽  
Etienne Puymirat ◽  
Nicolas Danchin
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Acute Chest Pain ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cardiac Biomarkers ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cardiology Department ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Rule Out

Patients presenting at the emergency department with acute chest pain and suspected to represent an acute coronary syndrome were classically admitted as routine to the cardiology department, resulting in expensive and time-consuming evaluations. However, 2-5% of patients with acute coronary syndromes were discharged home inappropriately, resulting in increased mortality. To address the inability to exclude the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, chest pain units were developed, particularly in the United States. These provide an environment where serial electrocardiograms, cardiac biomarkers, and provocative testing can be performed to confirm or rule out an acute coronary syndrome. Eligible candidates include the majority of patients with non-diagnostic electrocardiograms. The results have been impressive; chest pain units have markedly reduced adverse events, while simultaneously increasing the rate of safe discharge by 36%. Despite evidence to suggest that care in chest pain units is more effective for such patients, the percentage of emergency or cardiology departments setting up chest pain units remains low in Europe.

Chest pain and chest pain units

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Durand ◽  
Aures Chaib ◽  
Nicolas Danchin
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Acute Chest Pain ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cardiac Biomarkers ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cardiology Department ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Rule Out

Patients presenting at the emergency department with acute chest pain and suspected to represent an acute coronary syndrome were classically admitted as routine to the cardiology department, resulting in expensive and time-consuming evaluations. However, 2-5% of patients with acute coronary syndromes were discharged home inappropriately, resulting in increased mortality. To address the inability to exclude the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, chest pain units were developed, particularly in the United States. These provided an environment where serial electrocardiograms, cardiac biomarkers, and provocative testing could be performed to rule out an acute coronary syndrome. Eligible candidates included the majority of patients with non-diagnostic electrocardiograms and normal troponin measurements. The results have been impressive; chest pain units have markedly reduced adverse events, while simultaneously increasing the rate of safe discharge by 36%. Despite evidence to suggest that care in chest pain units is more effective for such patients, the percentage of emergency or cardiology departments setting up chest pain units remains very low in Europe.

Approach to the Patient Presenting with Chest Pain

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Tobias Nagurney
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Pain History

Caring for the emergency department patient with chest pain represents an important challenge to the emergency physician. Chest pain is the second most common presentation among all emergency department patients, accounting for approximately 6 million visits per year in the United States. Chest pain may represent a benign condition or a time-critical life threat; symptom overlap between benign and serious conditions can make an accurate chest pain diagnosis challenging. This review covers the pathophysiology, assessment, stabilization, diagnosis and treatment, and disposition and outcomes of chest pain. The figure shows an algorithm outlining the approach to the patient with chest pain. Tables list critical and noncritical diagnoses in patients presenting with chest pain: history, physical examination, and bedside testing; risk factors or associations for acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection; characteristics of the chest pain story to diagnose acute coronary syndrome; ABCDEs of resuscitation for patients with unstable vital signs; critical and noncritical diagnoses in patients presenting with chest pain: history, diagnosis, and treatment; prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients classified as low or high probability for this diagnosis by Wells score, modified Geneva score, and gestalt; commonly recognized pitfalls in the workup and diagnosis of chest pain in the emergency department; critical diagnoses in patients presenting with chest pain: history, disposition, and outcome; and summary of current recommendations. This review contains 1 highly rendered figure, 11 tables, and 54 references. Key words: acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, anginal pain, aortic dissection, cardiac-related pain, chest pain, coronary artery disease, non–ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

scholarly journals Missed myocardial infarction in a vicenarian with malignant anomalous right coronary artery causing acute coronary syndrome: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nafeesah Ali ◽  
Kandace Baggan ◽  
Shari S. Khan ◽  
Paramanand Maharaj ◽  
Ronan G. Ali
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Traditional coronary artery disease risk factors are well established and help risk stratify most patients presenting with chest pain syndromes. Young patients (under age 30 years) without other risk factors are thought to be at very low risk of coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes. Case presentation We highlight the case of a 27-year-old Afro-Caribbean male who presented to hospital with chest pain and was discharged from the emergency room because he was thought to be low risk for ischemic heart disease. Laboratory investigations subsequently confirmed acute coronary syndrome. He was found to have an anomalous right coronary artery with a malignant origin running between the aorta and pulmonary artery eventually requiring surgical correction. Anomalous origins of the coronary arteries are rare causes of acute coronary syndromes, chest pain, and sudden cardiac death. Conclusion Our patient could have easily had an adverse outcome as his diagnosis was missed by the initial treating physician. It is important to consider anomalous coronary artery origin in the evaluation of young symptomatic patients who may be otherwise low risk and not have traditional risk factors for ischemic heart disease.

Abstract 12162: Association of Symptom Clusters With Mode of Transportation to Emergency Department in Patients Diagnosed With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie L Davis ◽  
Thomas P McCoy ◽  
Barbara Riegel ◽  
Sharon McKinley ◽  
Lynn Doering ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Delay Time ◽  
Symptom Clusters ◽  
Prehospital Delay ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Stress Symptoms ◽  
Mode Of Transportation

Background: Prompt treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity; yet many patients delay seeking care. In order to receive timely care, symptoms of ACS need to be recognized, interpreted, and acted upon. Patients who experience symptoms matching their expectations and those with correct symptom attribution are more likely to use emergency medical services (EMS) as a means of transportation to the hospital. The connection between symptom type and EMS use has not been fully explored. Purpose: To assess if clusters of presenting symptoms are associated with EMS transportation to the emergency department (ED) in patients with ACS and to evaluate if EMS transportation or symptom clusters are associated with prehospital delay time. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted from the PROMOTION trial, a randomized controlled trial to reduce patient prehospital delay in ACS. Results: Of the 3,522 subjects with coronary artery disease enrolled, 3,087 completed 2-year follow-up. Of these, 331 subjects visited an ED for ACS symptoms during follow-up. Among the 331, 84% (278) had mode of transportation documented; 44% arrived by EMS. Having classic ACS symptoms (chest pain, pressure, or discomfort) in combination with pain symptoms (AOR=2.66, p = 0.011), classic ACS symptoms in combination with stress symptoms (AOR=2.61, p = 0.007) or classic ACS symptoms in combination with both pain and stress symptoms (AOR=3.90, p = 0.012) were associated with higher odds of arriving to the ED by EMS compared to classic ACS symptoms alone. Among 260 patients with prehospital delay time available, arriving by EMS decreased median delay time by 68.5 minutes compared to those with other transportation, after accounting for symptom clusters, patient and study characteristics (p = 0.002). Symptom clusters did not predict delay time in adjusted modeling (p = 0.952). Conclusion: While chest pain was the most prevalent symptom of ACS for most (85%), these findings suggest that it is the cluster of classic ACS symptoms with other types of symptom that motivate patients to use EMS. With less than half of patients using EMS, further research is needed to better understand how symptom clusters influence care-seeking behavior.

scholarly journals Factors Affecting Nursing Ability To Know Acute Coroner Syndrome In Emergency Installation

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-72
Author(s):  
Agus Riyadi ◽  
Karmiati Karmiati
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Emergency Services ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Almost All

Background: Coronary heart disease is the most cardiovascular disease that causes death in the world. The ability of nurses to recognize acute coronary syndromes is very necessary as part of the emergency services team. Purpose : The purpose of this study was to determine the description of the factors that influence the ability of nurses to know acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department of dr. Iskak Tulungagung. Methods : The design of this research is descriptive analytic with a cross sectional approach with the population of all nurses who work in the Emergency Department of dr. Iskak Tulungagung. The population is 55 nurses. The sample is all of the population, namely 55 respondents with total sampling sampling techniques. The data that has been collected is processed by a statistical test of Multivariate Analysis, Ordinal Regression with significance α = 0.05. Result : The results showed that most of the respondents with D3 education were 33 respondents (60.0%), almost all respondents had never attended ECG training in the amount of 50 respondents (90.9%) and almost half of the respondents had a working period of 2-5 year is 25 respondents (45.5%). The results of the regression regression analysis showed that the p-value = 0.855 on the education factor which means that H0 was accepted, the p-value = 0.041 in the training factor which means H1 is received, the p-value = 0.003 on the working period, which means that H1 is accepted Conclusion : Based on research, education does not affect the ability to recognize acute coronary syndrome. The education obtained will develop according to the increase in the work period and the frequent training that is obtained and practiced directly in real situations

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document