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

A Comparison of ChatGPT and Multidisciplinary Team Meeting Treatment Recommendations in 10 Consecutive Cervical Cancer Patients

Background The preparation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can be time-consuming. In addition to the clinical data being available digitally in subsystems, the preparation of more complex cases requires literature research. Several expert systems have been developed to support this process. However, the interaction with these systems has to be trained. Current development enables linguistic interaction with such artificial intelligence (AI) systems. To the best of our knowledge, these have not been tested as premedical screening tools for MDT. Methods This is a retrospective consecutive case series of 10 cervical cancer cases comparing the medical recommendations of the MDT and artificial intelligence (AI) on a low level (i.e., surgery, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy). Results The clinical cases ranged from primary diagnosis via suspected recurrence to palliative settings. The AI repeatedly stated that medical professionals need to be consulted before treatment decisions. The AI answers ranged from no agreement to overachievement by mentioning treatment options for preexisting risk factors (such as obesity). In standard cases, the AI answer matched well with the expert recommendations. In some cases, the AI answers were contrary to our treatment recommendation. Conclusion The interaction with current language AIs is temptingly easy, and the replies are very understandable. Despite the AI warning regarding medical recommendations in the majority of our cases, there was a good match with the MDT recommendations. However, in some cases, the medical evidence behind the answers was missing or in the worst case fictional. In our case series, the AI did not meet the requirements to support a clinical MDT meeting by prescreening the therapeutic options. However, it did exceed the expectations regarding the risk factors of the patients.

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).

The Impact of American College of Cardiology Chest Pain Center Accreditation on Guideline Recommended Acute Myocardial Infarction Management

BACKGROUND

Whether American College of Cardiology (ACC) Chest Pain Center (CPC) accreditation alters guidelines adherence rates is unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level, hospital-reported, quality metrics for myocardial infarction (MI) patients from 644 hospitals collected in the ACC's Chest Pain-MI Registry from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, stratified by CPC accreditation for >1 year.

RESULTS

Of 192,374 MI patients, 67,462 (35.1%) received care at an accredited hospital. In general, differences in guideline adherence rates between accredited and nonaccredited hospitals were numerically small, although frequently significant. Patients at accredited hospitals were more likely to undergo coronary angiography (98.6% vs. 97.9%, P < 0.0001), percutaneous coronary intervention for NSTEMI (55.4% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.0001), have overall revascularization for NSTEMI (63.5% vs. 61.0%, P < 0.0001), and receive P2Y12 inhibitor on arrival (63.5% vs. 60.2%, P < 0.0001). Nonaccredited hospitals more ECG within 10 minutes (62.3% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.0001) and first medical contact to device activation ≤90 minutes (66.8% vs. 64.8%, P < 0.0001). Accredited hospitals had uniformly higher discharge medication guideline adherence, with patients more likely receiving aspirin (97.8% vs. 97.4%, P < 0.0001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (46.7% vs. 45.3%, P < 0.0001), beta blocker (96.6% vs. 96.2%, P < 0.0001), P2Y12 inhibitor (90.3% vs. 89.2%, P < 0.0001), and statin (97.8% vs. 97.5%, P < 0.0001). Interaction by accredited status was significant only for length of stay, which was slightly shorter at accredited facilities for specific subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

ACC CPC accreditation was associated with small consistent improvement in adherence to guideline-based treatment recommendations of catheter-based care (catheterization and PCI) for NSTEMI and discharge medications, and shorter hospital stays.

[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.

Management of Pulmonary Embolism: Results from the German Chest Pain Unit Registry

INTRODUCTION

Since 2008, specialized chest pain units (CPUs) were implemented across Germany ensuring structured diagnostics in acute chest pain. This study aims to analyze the management of pulmonary embolism (PE) patients in such certified CPUs.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from 13,902 patients enrolled in the German CPU registry and analyzed for the diagnosis of PE including patient characteristics, critical time intervals, diagnostic workup, treatment, and prognosis. PE patients were compared to the overall CPU patient cohort. Only patients with a complete 3-month follow-up were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 1.1% of all CPU patients were diagnosed with PE. Chest pain and dyspnea were the leading symptoms. Patients with PE were older, presented with higher heart rates, and more frequently exhibited signs of heart failure, despite a normal left ventricular function. PE patients showed significantly longer time delays between symptom onset and the first medical contact, while PE patients with chest pain presented earlier than PE patients with dyspnea only. Whereas more PE patients had to be transferred to the intensive care unit, in-CPU mortality and event rates over 3 months were low.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study suggests a certain risk for underdiagnosis and consecutive potential undertreatment of PE patients in German Cardiac Society (GCS)-certified CPUs, which is thought to result from an anticipated focus on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Public awareness for PE beyond chest pain should be improved. Certified CPUs should be urged to implement strategic pathways for a better simultaneous diagnostic workup of differential diagnosis beyond ACS.

Gender Differences in Patients Admitted to a Certified German Chest Pain Unit: Results from the German Chest Pain Unit Registry

INTRODUCTION

Gender-specific atypical clinical presentation in acute coronary syndrome and sex-specific outcomes in cardiovascular disease in women are well known. The aim of this study is to analyze possible differences between men and women presenting to certified German chest pain units (CPUs).

METHODS

Data from 13,900 patients derived from the German CPU registry were analyzed for gender differences in patient characteristics, cardiovascular disease manifestation, critical time intervals, treatment and prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 37.8% of patients were female. Typical chest pain occurred more frequently in men, while atypical symptoms occurred more frequently in women. Female gender was associated with longer pre- and in-hospital time delays. Women were more often diagnosed with a nonischemic origin of pain. In a 3-month follow-up, there was no gender-specific difference in combined major adverse coronary and cerebrovascular events.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study points out gender-specific differences in prehospital time intervals and a significantly higher percentage of atypical symptoms in suspected myocardial ischemia as well as more noncoronary diagnoses in women. Symptom awareness and a broader diagnostic workup in women are essential.

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.