|
|
Concept of Community Chest Pain Centers in Emergency Departments
Raymond D. Bahr, MD, FACP, FACC
Medical Director
The Paul Dudley White Coronary Care System
St. Agnes HealthCare
Baltimore, MD
Quick Overview
Heart Attack is the Number One Health Problem
The Strategy of the Chest Pain Movement
Reducing "Time to Treatment"
Chest Pain Centers in EDs: Damage Control Centers
Heart attack is the number one health problem facing
our nation, killing more than 600,000 Americans annually. Its magnitude
is such that it surpasses all of the American soldiers killed in previous
wars and has been the number one killer of the adult American since the
turn of the century. The question then is: Can we do something about the
heart attack problem? Can we engineer a victory? The concept of Community
Chest Pain Centers in emergency departments (EDs) is presented as a strategy
to significantly reduce heart attack deaths (see Table 1). This is a strategy
that is currently in place and continues to evolve.(1-6) It is estimated
that there are between 700 to 1,000 Chest Pain Centers in 48 states; the
growth pattern shows a doubling every 10 months.

The problem and location of heart attacks, be they acute ischemia or infarction,
lies in the community. Since the nucleus of the heart attack problem lies
in the community, it is here where the ultimate coronary care unit (CCU)
must reach. Thus, it becomes very important to interface early with the
public when heart attack symptoms are developing.
What then is the formula for success? It requires shifting the paradigm
of heart attack care to earlier recognition of symptoms so that acute prevention
and its benefits are possible. The benefits of early intervention were demonstrated
in the MITI trial,(7) in the GUSTO trial, (8) and in the GREAT study.(9)
The barrier to early intervention still exists, however. Can we take advantage
of prodromal symptoms of a heart attack (see Figure 1)? To do so we need
to shift the paradigm of care to acute prevention. Early intervention amounts
to acute prevention. Stopping the heart attack allows one to use this teachable
moment to educate about primary risk factor reduction. Thus, disease prevention
allows health promotion.
Figure 1
Reducing "Time to Treatment"
for Patients With Acute Myocardial
Infarction and Acute Coronary Syndrome

The ED is a natural target for this new paradigm. It is the hospital's
"front door" for many patients, such as those experiencing chest
pain or chest discomfort. A Chest Pain Center in the ED is a way that a
community hospital can focus attention on heart attacks through chest pain
evaluation (see Table 2, page 6). It then becomes a basic subunit that when
multiplied by the 6,700 community hospitals in the United States provides
widespread opportunity for the prevention of heart attack deaths. This basic
subunit has been called the "community sarcomere." It allows for
more efficiency, more focused attention, proper preparation to take place,
and comprehensive management of chest pain patients with cardiac rehabilitation
upon discharge. It allows for research activities to further develop critical
pathways as well as provide the learning curve that can be shared by a variety
of care givers. Such centers can act as damage control centers in preventing
heart attacks.
Crashing myocardial infarction patients (those with total occlusion)
make up only 20% of patients with chest pain. It is important to have a
"clot team" that follows a protocol to reperfuse the infarct-related
artery quickly, but it is also important to have a comprehensive triage
and evaluation for chest pain patients. In an August editorial in 1969 (10)
on the future of coronary care, Morris Fishbein placed emphasis on chest
pain as a sign for the heart attack. He describes 64 patients admitted to
Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, NY, where the decision time of the
patient was greater than 3 hours. Careful inquiry showed that more than
half of the patients had various symptoms, but principally intermittent
or increasing chest pain 1 week before the onset of the actual heart attack.
Thus, the way to get at the heart attack problem is to ensure that the public
we serve is educated about the prodromal symptoms of heart attack so that
chest pain patients do not delay in seeking help and that we as a healthcare
team are prepared to provide prompt care.
Development of a low-probability myocardial ischemia critical pathway would
allow EDs to screen low-risk patients and provide a basis for community
outreach programs. What is the proper message that we can give to the community?
The message needs to be specific enough to prevent inappropriate use of
the ED by the public and informative enough to change behavior.
Developing the right message is up to all of us as healthcare providers.
We need to interpret the facts that we have at hand in the absence of solid
scientific information.(11) There are many different ways of delivering
the word and inviting the public. The St. Agnes approach utilizes a mountain
cliff scene showing risk stratification of presenting symptoms. It illustrates
the consequences of ignoring symptoms or delaying seeking help. EHAC has
been coined as an acronym for Early Heart Attack Care to give it status
somewhat similar to CPR.
What is the value of a Chest Pain Center learning curve? The learning curve
allows for a common wave length for care givers to participate. It also
helps us to recreate the CCU experience which was very powerful and formed
the basis for many of the discoveries in heart attack care over the last
30 years. It has a value added component. It also has components of resistance
that can be identified and overcome in time.
References
1. Bahr RD. Growth in chest pain emergency departments throughout
the United States: a cardiologist's spin on solving the heart attack problem.
Coron Artery Dis. 1995;6:827-830.
2. Bahr RD. The changing paradigm of acute heart attack prevention
in the emergency department: a futuristic viewpoint? Ann Emerg Med.
1995;25:95-96.
3. Bahr RD. Acute outpatient care and comprehensive management of
acute myocardial ischemia in chest pain emergency departments. Md Med
J. 1995;44:691-693.
4. Bahr RD, Tonascia J. Measuring heart attack care performance: new
indices and understanding. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14:89-90.
5. Bahr RD. Reducing time to therapy in AMI patients: the new paradigm.
Am J Emerg Med. 1994;12:501-503.
6. Graff L, Joseph T, Andelman R, et al. American college of emergency
physicians information paper: chest pain units in emergency departments-a
report from the Short-Term Observation Services Section. Am J Cardiol.
1995;76:1036-1039.
7. Weaver WD, Cerqueira M, Hallstrom AP, et al (for the Myocardial
Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Group). Prehospital-initiated
vs hospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy: the Myocardial Infarction Triage
and Intervention trial. JAMA. 1993;270:1211-1216.
8. The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing
four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl
J Med. 1993;329:673-682.
9. Rawles J on behalf of the GREAT Group. Halving of mortality at
1 year by domiciliary thrombolysis in the Grampian Region Early Anistreplase
Trial (GREAT). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23:1-5.
10. Fishbein M. The future of coronary care. Med World News. 1969:40.
11. Horton R. The interpretive turn. Lancet. 1995;346:8966. Editorial..
Return to Index of Articles for Clinician;
Volume 14.4
Home | What's New | What is EHAC? | Abstracts & Articles
Reader's Digest | Contact Us | Search
Tips for Searching
www.ehac.org.
Site by AllSoldOut Internet Solutions
Visit the Clinical Information EHAC site at www.chestpaincenters.org.
Copyright © 1996-2001
by St. Agnes Healthcare. All Rights Reserved.
|
|