Nationwide but still inhomogeneous distribution of certified chest pain units across Germany : Need to strengthen rural regions

Advancing acute MI care in densely populated low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): innovative stand-alone chest pain units for expedited triage and timely management

Background

The incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and its adverse effects on health and mortality remain high in densely populated low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To address the issue of densely populated areas and timely access to primary PCI, chest pain units (CPUs) were deployed at strategic locations in Karachi, with a populace of over 23 million people. This study describes the results of this initiative in expediting MI care.

Methods

Between 2017 and 2023, 18 CPUs, each with a cardiologist, technician, ECG machine, crash cart and an ambulance were placed in high density areas.

Findings

A total of 915,564 patients were seen at 18 CPUs over the study period. 692,444 (75.6%) were categorized as non-cardiac and subsequently discharged. 223,120 (24.6%) patients were directed for additional care. Of these, 9% had ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (19, 580), 29% NSTE ACS/Unstable angina, and 31% with various other cardiac conditions. Additionally, 31% were referred for medical outpatient evaluation. CPU inception led to a significant annual growth (16-20%) in primary PCI procedures at NICVD, totaling 20,000 by 2022-2023. The median first medical contact to device time was 100 min (IQR 80-135), while total ischemic was 232 min (IQR: 172-315; 5th -95th %le: 50-920). The overall in-hospital mortality rate for patients undergoing primary PCI was 5.58%, with a range between 5.1% and 6.9% through the study period.

Interpretation

Novel standalone chest pain units, operational from 2017 in Karachi, Pakistan, have expedited triage and enhanced the timely management of AMI. This initiative's transformative impact presents a model that resonates beyond borders, serving as a role model for global healthcare systems.

Funding

The CPU and primary PCI program is fully funded by the government of Sindh. No specific funding was allocated for this study.

New categorization of chest pain: noncardiac is in, atypical is out!

Chest pain poses a diagnostic challenge in the emergency department and requires a thorough clinical assessment. The traditional distinction between "atypical" and "typical" chest pain carries the risk of not addressing nonischemic clinical pictures. The newly conceived subdivision into cardiac, possibly cardiac, and (probably) noncardiac causes of the presenting symptom complex addresses a much more interdisciplinary approach to a symptom-oriented diagnostic algorithm. The diagnostic structures of the chest pain units in Germany do not currently reflect this. An adaptation should therefore be considered.

Cardiac, possible cardiac, and likely non-cardiac origin of chest pain : A hitherto underestimated parameter in German chest pain units

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines emphasize the diagnostic value of non-cardiac or possibly cardiac chest pain. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether German chest pain units (CPUs) adequately address conditions with "atypical" chest pain in existing diagnostic structures.

METHOD

A total of 11,734 patients from the German CPU registry were included. The analyses included mode of admission, critical time intervals, diagnostic steps, and differential diagnoses.

RESULTS

Patients with unspecified chest pain were younger, more often female, were less likely to have classic cardiovascular risk factors and tended to present more often as self-referrals. Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly had prehospital medical contact. Overall, there was no difference between these two groups regarding the time from the onset of first symptoms to arrival at the CPU. In the CPU, the usual basic diagnostic measures were performed irrespective of ACS as the primary working diagnosis. In the non-ACS group, further ischemia-specific diagnostics were rarely performed. Extra-cardiac differential diagnoses were not specified.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of broader awareness programs and opening CPUs for low-threshold evaluation of self-referring patients should be discussed. Regarding the rigid focus on the clarification of cardiac causes of chest pain, a stronger interdisciplinary approach should be promoted.

Survey of clinical practice pattern in Germany's certified chest pain units : Adherence to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyze the 2020 standard of care in certified German chest pain units (CPU) with a special focus on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) through a voluntary survey obtained from all certified units, using a prespecified questionnaire.

METHODS

The assessment included the collection of information on diagnostic protocols, risk assessment, management and treatment strategies in suspected NSTE-ACS, the timing of invasive therapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and the choice of antiplatelet therapy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75%. Among all CPUs, 77% are currently using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/3‑h high-sensitive troponin protocol, and only 20% use the ESC 0/1‑h high-sensitive troponin protocol as a default strategy. Conventional ergometry is still the commonly performed stress test with a utilization rate of 47%. Among NSTEMI patients, coronary angiography is planned within 24 h in 96% of all CPUs, irrespective of the day of the week. Prasugrel is the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but despite the impact of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial on selection of antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor is still favored over prasugrel in NSTE-ACS. If triple therapy is used in NSTE-ACS with atrial fibrillation, it is maintained up to 4 weeks in 51% of these patients.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides evidence that Germany's certified CPUs ensure a high level of guideline adherence and quality of care. The survey also identified areas in need of improvement such as the high utilization rate of stress electrocardiogram (ECG).

[Comparison between chest pain units and stroke units : Essential components of the vascular emergency care system: comparison of structure, certification process, quality benchmarking and reimbursement]

BACKGROUND

Chest pain units (CPU) and stroke units (SU) have both become established as essential components of clinical emergency care. For both instances dedicated certification processes are installed. Up to summer 2020, 290 CPUs and 335 SUs have been successfully certified.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to compare the structures and the current certification situation of CPUs and SUs. Also, the younger CPU certification process is compared to the long established SU certification standard.

MATERIAL UND METHODS

The comparison includes the historical background, the certification process, quality benchmarking, possible additive structures, the current status of certification in Germany, the transfer of the concept to the European level as well as reimbursement issues.

RESULTS

Both certification concepts show clear analogies. Evidence for SUs is supported by a positive Cochrane analysis and for CPUs there are many studies from the German CPU registry. The main differences include a uniform CPU system versus a multistep SU system of certification. Furthermore, SU have obligatory elements of quality documentation but only facultative quality indicator assessment for CPUs. From an economic viewpoint operation and procedural key (OPS) numbers guarantee a better reflection of the use of resources in the complex treatment of stroke, which could not yet be established for CPUs.

CONCLUSION

The well-established CPU concept could additionally benefit from a superordinate quality control. Adequate quality benchmarking appears to be fundamental for gap analyses and for the establishment of a separate remuneration structure. In this respect the German Society for Cardiology as the certifying institution is required to establish an appropriate mechanism within the framework of regular updates of criteria.

Unexpected high level of severe events even in low-risk profile chest pain unit patients

AIMS

Early heart attack awareness programs are thought to increase efficacy of chest pain units (CPU) by providing live-saving information to the community. We hypothesized that self-referral might be a feasible alternative to activation of emergency medical services (EMS) in selected chest pain patients with a specific low-risk profile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this observational registry-based study, data from 4743 CPU patients were analyzed for differences between those with or without severe or fatal prehospital or in-unit events (out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and/or in-unit death, resuscitation or ventricular tachycardia). In order to identify a low-risk subset in which early self-referral might be recommended to reduce prehospital critical time intervals, the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score for in-hospital mortality and a specific low-risk CPU score developed from the data by multivariate regression analysis were applied and corresponding event rates were calculated. Male gender, cardiac symptoms other than chest pain, first onset of symptoms and a history of myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardioverter defibrillator implantation increased propensity for critical events. Event rates within the low-risk subsets varied from 0.5-2.8%. Those patients with preinfarction angina experienced fewer events.

CONCLUSIONS

When educating patients and the general population about angina pectoris symptoms and early admission, activation of EMS remains recommended. Even in patients without any CPU-specific risk factor, self-referral bears the risk of severe or fatal pre- or in-unit events of 0.6%. However, admission should not be delayed, and self-referral might be feasible in patients with previous symptoms of preinfarction angina.

The Diagnosis of Acute Myocarditis in Emergency (DAME) score: improving diagnostics within the emergency department

PURPOSE

. The final diagnosis of myocarditis is challenging. The aim of our study was to provide the D.A.M.E. (Diagnosis of Acute Myocarditis in Emergency) Score for the fast identification of patients suffering from myocarditis at Emergency Department (ED).

METHODS

. This was a multicenter, retrospective study involving three centers. All medical records from January 2010 to December 2014 reporting a final discharge diagnosis of myocarditis were considered. One hundred-four patients (mean age: 40.2±16.5 years) were enrolled. Clinical, biochemical and instrumental data were gathered. Data were analysed by means of logistic regression model and factorial analysis. A validation cohort from a fourth center was enrolled.

RESULTS

. The final determinants of the DAME score were six: fever, chest pain, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) > 20 mm/h, C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) >3 mg/L, troponin serum levels >3 ng/L, and left ventricle ejection fraction < 50%. All of them received a specified score ranging from 0 to 4. A score > 4 was related to 75% probability of myocarditis; a final score ranging between 1 and 4 was related to 57% probability of myocarditis. ROC curve on the validation cohort (289 patients, 27 with myocarditis) demonstrated the best cut-off to be 7: AUC 0.958 (p< 0.001), sensibility: 100%, specificity: 85.11%, PPV: 40.9%, NPV: 100% (LR+: 6.72; LR-: 0.00). Logistic regression analysis revealed Odds Ratio equal to 2.83 (95% CI 1.90 - 4.20, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

. DAME score can offer a reliable tool in ED setting for the evaluation of patients suffering from suspected myocarditis.

Capacity changes in German certified chest pain units during COVID-19 outbreak response

Background

We sought to determine structure and changes in organisation and bed capacities of certified German chest pain units (CPU) in response to the emergency plan set-up as a response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Methods and results

The study was conducted in the form of a standardised telephone interview survey in certified German CPUs. Analyses comprised the overall setting of the CPU, bed capacities, possibilities for ventilation, possible changes in organisation and resources, chest pain patient admittance, overall availability of CPUs and bail-out strategies. The response rate was 91%. Nationwide, CPU bed capacities decreased by 3% in the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic response, exhibiting differences within and between the federal states. Pre-pandemic and pandemic bed capacities stayed below 1 CPU bed per 50,000 inhabitants. 97% of CPUs were affected by internal reorganisation pandemic plans at variable extent. While we observed a decrease of CPU beds within an emergency room (ER) set-up and on intermediate care units (ICU), beds in units being separated from ER and ICU were even increased in numbers.

Conclusions

Certified German CPUs are able to maintain adequate coverage for chest pain patients in COVID-19 pandemic despite structural changes. However, at this time, it appears important to add operating procedures during pandemic outbreaks to the certification criteria of forthcoming guidelines either at the individual CPU level or more centrally steered by the German Cardiac Society or the European Society of Cardiology.

German chest pain unit registry: data review after the first decade of certification

In 2008, the German Cardiac Society (GCS) introduced a certification program for specialized chest pain units (CPUs). In order to benchmark the performance of the certified CPUs, a nationwide German CPU registry was established. Since then, data for more than 34,000 patients have been included. The concept of certified CPUs in Germany has been widely accepted and its success is underlined by its recent inclusion in national and international guidelines. As of December 2019, 286 CPUs have been successfully certified or recertified by the GCS. This review focuses on the data retrieved from the CPU registry during the first decade of certification. As demonstrated by 16 manuscripts stemming from the registry, certified German CPUs demonstrate high quality of care in acute coronary syndrome and beyond. It is also noted that the German CPU registry allowed for further analysis of the gap in guideline adherence. With the current update of the CPU certification criteria, central data collection as a best-practice criterion will be abandoned, and after some productive years the registry has temporarily been stopped.

Quality benchmarks for chest pain units and stroke units in Germany

BACKGROUND

Chest pain units (CPUs) and stroke units (SUs) provide specialized multidisciplinary in-hospital management for acute chest pain and ischemic stroke. We analyzed exemplary equivalent quality benchmarks in both concepts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from the German CPU registry (2012-2015; 45 certified CPUs, 5881 patients) were compared with data from the SU registry of Rhineland-Palatinate (2011-2015; 29 SUs; 40,380 patients). Parameters comprised demographics, symptoms, diagnosis, medication, critical time intervals, therapeutics, and in-unit outcome.

RESULTS

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (47.4%) and ischemic stroke (63.0%) were the most frequent entities. An electrocardiogram was performed on average within 7 min in CPUs, cranial imaging within 49 min in SUs. The mean time interval from admission until coronary intervention or lysis was 42 min or 57 min, respectively. Rates of antiplatelet therapy (90.1% vs. 96.0%), brain imaging, and coronary angiography were high (99.3% vs. 81.1%) and the mortality was low (0.8% for CPUs vs. 3.6% for SUs). The length of stay was shorter in CPUs (1.5 days vs. 4.4 days).

CONCLUSION

As reimbursement for emergency medicine in Germany was recently rearranged, quality benchmarking has gained incremental importance. Mandatory joint quality measurement in both concepts ensuring gap analysis and process improvement is encouraged.

Acceptance of the Chest Pain Unit Certification Process: Current Status in Germany

The nationwide German certification process of specialized chest pain units is unique in Europe. By February 2018, 269 units had already been successfully certified. With that number, more than half of all catheter laboratories across the country offering service on a 24/7 basis for interventional treatment in myocardial infarction take part in that certified chest pain program - with still increasing tendency. Currently, those units provide a mean of one chest pain unit bed per 65,000 inhabitants. Thereby, a high percentage of recertification of about 95% reflects a high acceptance of the concept by the health care providers. Structured in-hospital procedures, increasing awareness within the community and among the emergency medical services as well as increasing numbers of self-referrals guarantee higher work-flow, improving performance and an even increasing demand for those units. Complimentary patient awareness campaigns focusing on early symptom recognition might further improve, expand and redirect patient flow, shorten patient-related delay and have to become the next level in chest pain patient care in Germany. Transferring the idea of early heart attack care to the community as a new way of thinking might be able to more significantly decrease future symptoms-to-therapy times as the current chest pain unit program can solely achieve.