Editor—Acute chest pain is an important, but neglected, problem in the United Kingdom.1 Emerging diagnostic approaches, such as the use of ST segment monitoring in emergency departments, new cardiac markers, and chest pain units have been extensively investigated in the United States.2–4 Yet evaluation in the United Kingdom has progressed little beyond audit. Herren et al should therefore be congratulated for embarking on rigorous evaluation of this problem.5 The protocol they describe has impressive diagnostic performance for myocardial infarction. There are, however, several reasons why we cannot assume that this will lead to improved patient care and cost effectiveness.
Assessment of acute chest pain requires more than simply ruling out myocardial infarction. Chest pain units in the United States typically provide provocative cardiac testing to stratify their patients further by risk. Immediate exercise stress testing is feasible in British emergency departments and is provided to patients within six hours of attendance at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield.
The Manchester study enrolled 383 patients over the course of one year. This represents approximately one patient per day and accounts for only a small proportion of attendances with chest pain to an urban emergency department. In these circumstances the selection process may be as important as the diagnostic protocol itself. A substantial proportion of patients have known coronary heart disease and present with characteristic angina-type pain, but have no diagnostic changes on electrocardiography. Were these patients included in the study? If not, how were they excluded?
Without a control group it is impossible to know how the cohort described would be managed if there were no chest pain unit. American studies of chest pain units have shown cost savings compared with a control group that is routinely admitted and shown improved effectiveness compared with control groups with substantial discharge rates.4 A meaningful comparison should, however, reflect current routine practice—patients admitted or discharged according to the clinicians' judgment.
A randomised controlled trial incorporating such a control group is currently in progress at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield. An identical gold standard to that used in Manchester (troponin T) is being used to compare diagnostic accuracy. Evaluation also includes cardiac events over six months, quality of life, health utility, patient satisfaction, and cost effectiveness. Until such data are available chest pain units should be considered to be of unproved value in the United Kingdom.
References
- 1.Capewell S, McMurray JJV. “Chest pain—please admit”: is there an alternative? BMJ. 2000;320:951–952. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fesmire FM, Percy RF, Bardoner JB, Wharton DR, Calhoun FB. Usefulness of automated serial 12-lead ECG monitoring during the initial emergency department evaluation of patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;31:3–11. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70274-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: Critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting with suspected acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina: Serum marker analysis in acute myocardial infarction. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;35:521–544. doi: 10.1067/mem.2000.106387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Goodacre SW. Should we establish chest pain observation units in the United Kingdom? A systematic review. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17:1–6. doi: 10.1136/emj.17.1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Herren KR, Mackway-Jones K, Richards CR, Seneviratne CJ, France MW, Cotter L. Diagnostic cohort study. Is it possible to exclude a diagnosis of myocardial damage within six hours of admission to an emergency department? BMJ. 2001;323:372. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7309.372. . (18 August.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]