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

[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.

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.