Byrne J, Murdoch D, Morrison C, McMurray J
Department of Cardiology, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Postgrad Med J. 2002 Jan;78(915):43-6. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.915.43.
The recent National Service Framework for coronary heart disease advocates the establishment of rapid assessment clinics for chest pain. But how should these clinics be organised and do they fulfil their objectives? The aim of this study was to compare referral patterns to a daily and a weekly "one stop" rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC), and to examine clinical outcome in patients attending these clinics.
Patients were prospectively categorised into one of the following subgroups: "acute coronary syndrome", "stable coronary heart disease", or "low risk/non-coronary chest pain". Fatal and non-fatal outcomes were audited over eight months.
Both RACPCs were situated within the cardiology departments of two large Glasgow teaching hospitals. Patients were seen by a cardiologist, and underwent non-invasive testing.
A total of 633 patients with chest pain who were referred by their general practitioner; 500 came to the daily and 133 to the weekly clinic. Forty four (7%) were categorised as having an acute coronary syndrome, 267 (42%) as stable coronary artery disease, and 322 (51%) as low risk/non-coronary chest pain.
Referral patterns to the two clinics differed significantly. Compared with the weekly clinic, more patients with an acute coronary syndrome (7.8 v. 3.8%) and low risk/non-coronary chest pain (55.2 v. 35.6%), but fewer patients with stable coronary disease (37.0 v. 61.6%) were referred to the daily clinic (p<0.00001). During follow up eight (1.3%) patients died from a cardiac cause, and eight (1.3%) patients suffered a myocardial infarction. None of these patients were classified as low risk/non-coronary chest pain.
(1) RACPCs do provide an effective tool for the early assessment of patients with possible angina. (2) The frequency with which clinics are scheduled may be an important factor in determining how the service is utilised in practice.
最近的冠心病国家服务框架提倡设立胸痛快速评估诊所。但这些诊所应如何组织,它们是否实现了目标?本研究的目的是比较转诊至每日一次和每周一次的“一站式”快速胸痛诊所(RACPC)的模式,并检查就诊于这些诊所的患者的临床结局。
前瞻性地将患者分为以下亚组之一:“急性冠状动脉综合征”、“稳定型冠心病”或“低风险/非冠状动脉性胸痛”。对八个月内的致命和非致命结局进行审核。
两个RACPC均位于格拉斯哥两家大型教学医院的心脏病科内。患者由心脏病专家诊治,并接受无创检查。
共有633例因胸痛由全科医生转诊的患者;500例前往每日诊所,133例前往每周诊所。44例(7%)被归类为患有急性冠状动脉综合征,267例(42%)为稳定型冠状动脉疾病,322例(51%)为低风险/非冠状动脉性胸痛。
转诊至两家诊所的模式有显著差异。与每周诊所相比,更多急性冠状动脉综合征患者(7.8%对3.8%)和低风险/非冠状动脉性胸痛患者(55.2%对35.6%)被转诊至每日诊所,但稳定型冠心病患者较少(37.0%对61.6%)(p<0.00001)。在随访期间,8例(1.3%)患者死于心脏原因,8例(1.3%)患者发生心肌梗死。这些患者均未被归类为低风险/非冠状动脉性胸痛。
(1)RACPC确实为早期评估可能患有心绞痛的患者提供了一种有效工具。(2)诊所安排的频率可能是决定该服务在实际中如何被利用的一个重要因素。