Key result
Cochrane protocol outlines planned review comparing chest pain observation units with routine emergency care.
Why the study?
The comparative effects of chest pain observation unit care versus routine emergency care on morbidity, mortality, and other outcomes in adults with chest pain are unclear.
Systematic Review
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To compare chest pain observation unit care with (routine) emergency care in terms of morbidity (myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, urgent cardiac revascularization) and mortality (from all causes and due to cardiovascular diseases) in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain Secondary objectives (1) To compare chest pain observation unit care with (routine) emergency care in terms of length of hospital stay, readmission rates in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain; (2) To compare chest pain observation unit care with (routine) emergency care in terms of quality of life and stress/anxiety in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain; (3) To estimate the mean cost saving per patient of chest pain units as compared to (routine) emergency care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berwanger et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review in chest pain suggestive of acute cardiac ischaemia. Chest pain observation unit care vs. (routine) emergency care was evaluated on Morbidity (myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, urgent cardiac revascularization) and mortality (from all causes and due to cardiovascular diseases). This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review to compare chest pain observation unit care with routine emergency care; no results are available yet.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: