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

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.

Sex differences of patients with acute chest pain evaluated through a chest pain unit

BACKGROUND

Although sex disparities between patients with acute myocardial infarction are well known, the data regarding sex differences among symptomatic patients with acute chest pain (ACP) are limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the records of 1000 consecutive patients with ACP and hospitalized in a tertiary medical center chest pain unit (CPU). Patients were divided according to sex. The primary outcome was defined as a composite end point of readmission because of chest pain, incidence of acute coronary syndrome, revascularization, and death at 90 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, 673 men and 327 women were included in the current analysis. There was no difference in regard to sex for patients who underwent noninvasive evaluation, (87.8 vs. 87.3%, P = 0.85, for female vs. male, respectively). Among patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, women were less likely to have significant coronary artery disease (CAD) (4.2 vs. 11.3%, P = 0.005). Similarly, women had fewer significant findings (4.4 vs. 7.6%, P = 0.007) on myocardial perfusion imaging. Consequently, fewer women underwent angiography (8 vs. 14%, P = 0.006) and revascularization (2.8 vs. 7.3%, P = 0.004). During follow-up, sex was not associated with the development of the primary composite outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-2.09, P-value = 0.82 and OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.65-2.06, P-value = 0.59 for 90-day and 1-year follow-up, respectively].

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of patients through a CPU enables comparable noninvasive evaluation, appropriate utilization of invasive assessment with similar outcomes during the short and intermediate follow-up period regardless of patients' sex.

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.