Objective To explore the clinical features and diagnostic procedure of atypical asthma characteristic of chest pain.Methods The patients with unexplained chest pain were screened by lung function test and bronchial provocation test.The diagnosis of asthma was established by therapeutic test and exclusive procedure.The clinical manifestations were analyzed.Results In 56 cases of unexplained chest pain 20 cases were diagnosed as asthma.While all patients referred to clinic with chest pain as chief complaint，a majority of patients (11 cases，85%) showed obscure chest tightness，breath shortness and cough..Some cases reported the same trigger factors as asthma.Chest pain was relieved in all cases after regular antiasthma treatments.Conclusions Chest pain could be a specific presentation of asthma which may be misdiagnosed as other diseases.Bronchial provocation tests and antiasthma therapy should be considered to screen and diagnose this atypical asthma.
目的：了解有症状冠状动脉异常患者的临床特点和预后。方法：搜集1999年11月~2005年10月期间，因胸痛在心导管室行冠状动脉造影的病例，分析冠状动脉异常患者所占构成比，对该类患者进行随访，分析其临床特点及临床终点事件(死亡、心脏猝死、心肌梗死以及血运重建等)的发生情况。结果：在研究期间，共2003例胸痛患者进行了冠状动脉造影，74例患者有冠状动脉异常(构成比3.7%)，包括心肌桥54例、冠状动脉瘘16例、冠状动脉异常起源3例、单支冠状动脉1例。其中23名冠状动脉异常患者伴发有严重的冠状动脉粥样硬化病变或主动脉瓣病变。对无上述伴发疾病的冠状动脉异常患者进行随访，在随访期内(平均随访40月)，与冠状动脉正常患者相比，该类患者临床终点事件发生率无差异。结论：在有胸痛症状行冠状动脉造影的患者中，冠状动脉异常的构成比较低。该类患者的临床预后近似于冠状动脉正常患者。
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of continuous improvement of quality control system on the emergency treatment efficiency for patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after the establishment of Chest Pain Center. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the differences of theory examination scores acquired by the Chest Pain Center staff one month before and after they got the system training. Moreover, we designated the STEMI patients treated between May and August 2015 after the establishment of Chest Pain Center but before optimization of process to group A (n=70), and patients treated from September to December 2015 after optimization of process to group B (n=55). Then we analyzed the differences between these two groups in terms of the time from patients' arriving to registration, the time from arriving to first order, the length of stay in Emergency Department, and even the time from door to balloon (D2B). ResultsThe scores acquired by Chest Pain Center staff before and after system training were 69.89±6.34 and 87.09±4.39 respectively, with a significant difference (P＜0.05). All the time indicators of both group A and group B were shown as median and quartile. The time from patients' arriving to registration of group A and group B was 6.0 (0.0, 11.0) minutes and 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) minutes (P＜0.05); the time from arriving to first order was 12.8 (9.0, 18.0) minutes and 5.0 (3.0, 9.0) minutes (P＜0.05); the length of stay in Emergency Department was 54.0 (44.0,77.0) minutes and 33.0 (20.0, 61.0) minutes (P＜0.05); and the time of D2B was 107.5 (89.0, 130.0) minutes and 79.0 (63.0, 108.0) minutes (P＜0.05). ConclusionAfter taking measures such as drawing lessons from the past, training staff and optimizing process continuously, we have significantly shortened the acute STEMI patients' length of stay in the Emergency Department, which has saved more time for the following rescue of STEMI patients.
ObjectivesTo systematically review clinical values of multi-slice spiral computed tomography angiography (MSCTA) in diagnosis of chest pain triple (CPT).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect diagnostic tests on CPT diagnosed by MSCTA from inception to October 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 12.0 software. The pooled weighted Sen, Spe, +LR, -LR, and the DOR were calculated, SROC and AUC were drawn.ResultsA total of 11 diagnostic studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the pooled Sen, Spe, +LR, -LR, DOR and AUC of MSCTA for diagnosing CPT were 0.95 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.98), 0.97 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.98), 31.24 (95%CI 15.63 to 62.43), 0.05 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.10), 659.04 (95%CI 236.73 to 1 834.71) and 0.99 (95%CI 0.98 to 1.00), respectively.ConclusionsMSCTA has high sensibility and specificity for diagnosing CPT. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of establishment of chest pain center and optimized process in the diagnostic and treatment progress and short-term prognostic value of acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. MethodsThis was a retrospective study. We included NSTEMI patients admitted in the Emergency Department in our hospital, 41 patients admitted before the establishment of the chest pain center (April 2015) were included as group A (30 males and 11 females at age of 64.7±11.8 years), 42 patients after the establishment of the chest pain center (April 2016) as group B (31 males and 11 females at age of 64.6±11.8 years), and 38 patients after the establishment of the chest pain center (April 2017) as group C (30 males and 8 females at age of 62.6±10.0 years). The clinical outcomes of the three groups were compared.ResultsThe time from admission to electrocardiogram was 20.0 (17.0, 25.5) min in the group A, 4.0 (2.8, 5.0) min in the group B, and 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) min in the group C (P<0.001). The first doctor's non-electrocardiogram advice time was 13.0 (10.0, 18.0) min, 9.5 (6.8, 15.3) min, and 9.0 (7.0, 12.0) min (P=0.001) in the three groups, respectively. The diagnostic confirmed time was 139.4±48.5 min, 71.1±51.5 min, 63.9±41.9 min (P<0.001). The proportion of patients receiving emergency dual anti-platelet load dose treatment was 53.1%, 70.0%, 100.0% (P=0.001), respectively. The time of receiving emergency dual anti-platelet load dose treatment was 208.0 (72.0, 529.0) min, 259.0 (91.0, 340.0) min, and 125.0 (86.0, 170.0) min (P=0.044) in the three groups, respectively. Emergency percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) start time was 60.9 (42.1, 95.8) hours, 61.3 (43.3, 92.2) hours, 30.5 (2.8, 44.1) hours (P<0.001) in the three groups, respectively. Among them, the moderate risk patients’ PCI starting time was 63.0 (48.1, 94.2) hours, 62.3 (42.1, 116.2) hours, and 40.1 (17.2, 60.4) hours (P>0.05), respectively. The high risk patients’ PCI starting time was 47.9 (23.7, 102.4) hours, 55.2 (44.0, 89.6) hours, 23.2 (1.7, 41.8) hours in the three groups, respectively (P<0.001). The hospitalization time of the patients was 7.0 (5.4, 9.4) days, 5.9 (4.9, 8.7) days, 4.7 (3.1, 6.2) days in the three groups (P<0.001), respectively. The hospitalization time of the moderate risk patients was 6.9 (4.9, 8.8) days, 6.4 (4.9, 8.0) days, 4.8 (3.2, 6.5) days in the three groups (P>0.05), respectively. The hospitalization time of the high risk patients was 7.1 (5.5, 9.9) days, 5.9 (4.6, 9.8) days, and 4.4 (3.0, 6.1) days, respectively (P<0.001). The fatality rate of inpatients was 4.9%, 0.0%, and 0.0%, respectively (P>0.05). The correlation coefficient of hospitalization time, diagnosis confirmed time and PCI starting time was 0.219 and 0.456 (P<0.05), respectively.ConclusionThe establishment and optimized process of chest pain center can accelerate the time of early diagnosis of NSTEMI, which is helpful to obtain stratified and graded standardized treatment for patients according to their conditions, to accelerate the specific treatment process of high risk NSTEMI patients, and shorten the hospitalization time.
The American Heart Association and other six major associations jointly released AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain for the first report on October 28th, 2021. This guideline stresses the risk stratification and the diagnostic workup of acute chest pain, considers the cost-effectiveness of low-risk chest pain diagnosis and examination, and recommends sharing decisions with patients. This guideline mainly involves the initial evaluation of chest pain, choosing the right pathway with patient-centric algorithms for acute chest pain, and the evaluation of patients with stable chest pain. This review makes a detailed interpretation of the recommended points of the guideline through reviewing the literature.