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.
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.