Key result
Daytime calls linked to more than double the rate of delayed ACS diagnosis.
Why the study?
Adequate triage of acute chest discomfort in out-of-hours primary care is crucial to minimize delays in ACS diagnosis, but predictors of delayed diagnosis and sex differences remain unclear.
What symptom, patient, and call characteristics predict delayed ACS diagnosis during telephone triage in out-of-hours primary care?
Case-Control (n=264)
Yes
What symptom, patient, and call characteristics predict delayed ACS diagnosis during telephone triage in out-of-hours primary care?
Absolute Event Rate: 42.9% vs 19.7%
p-value: p=0.002
In out-of-hours primary care, diagnostic delays for ACS are associated with longer triage calls, late presentation (>12 hours from pain onset), and non-classic symptoms like stabbing chest pain or palpitations, though these features are difficult to use routinely due to their overlap with non-ACS conditions.
Daytime calls and stabbing pain were associated with delayed ACS triage; leaves open targeted protocol refinements in prospective studies.
Adequate triage of acute chest discomfort in out-of-hours services in primary care (OHS-PC) is crucial for minimising delays in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and subsequently limit myocardial damage. The objective was to identify predictors of delayed ACS diagnosis in OHS-PC and examine differences between females and males to further improve telephone triage of acute chest discomfort. This is a retrospective unmatched case-control study which analysed telephone triage conversations of individuals with acute chest discomfort due to ACS who contacted the OHS-PC in the Netherlands. Call characteristics, symptoms, and patient characteristics were compared between cases- those with a delayed ACS diagnosis during the initial diagnostic phase at the OHS-PC- and controls, who were adequately triaged. Additionally, sex differences were examined. Delay was defined as low urgency allocation (U3-U5) or high urgency allocation (U1 or U2) without immediate hospital referral. Of 2,428 callers with acute chest discomfort, 267 (11.0%) had an ACS, of whom 35 (13.3%) were classified as cases and 229 (86.7%) as controls. Cases were more common during daytime (42.9% vs. 19.7%, p = 0.002) and had a longer median call duration compared to controls (08:21 [07:07–13:27] min vs. 05:37 [03:53 − 07:35] min, p < 0.001). Cases less often contacted the OHS-PC within 12 h of pain onset (71.0% vs. 86.9%, p = 0.031). Patient characteristics were largely similar between cases and controls, but cases less often reported oppressive or heavy-feeling chest pain (64.3% vs. 84.3%, p = 0.011) and more often stabbing chest pain (21.4% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.025) and palpitations and/or tingling sensations (28.6% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.028). No significant differences were observed between female and male cases. Delays in ACS diagnosis were more prevalent during daytime and were associated with a longer median call duration. Patients with ACS and a delayed diagnosis less often contacted the OHS-PC within 12 h of pain onset, more often reported stabbing than oppressive or heavy-feeling chest pain, and more often reported palpitations and/or tingling sensations than patients with ACS without a delayed diagnosis. No differences were observed between female and male cases. We could not identify easily modifiable determinants of delay in the triage and referral of ACS at the OHS-PC among patients calling with acute chest discomfort. NL7134.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dobbe et al. (2026) conducted a case-control in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) (n=264). Predictors of diagnostic delay (e.g., daytime calling, atypical symptoms) vs. Adequately triaged ACS patients (controls) was evaluated on Daytime calling (08:00-16:59 h) (p=0.002). Delayed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome was significantly more prevalent during daytime calls (42.9% vs 19.7%, p=0.002) and among patients presenting with stabbing rather than oppressive chest pain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: