Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kriterien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung für „Chest-Pain-Units“

Criteria of the German Cardiac Society – cardiovascular research for Chest Pain Units

  • Empfehlungen
  • Published:
Der Kardiologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die Task Force „Chest-Pain-Unit“ (CPU) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie erarbeitete Richtlinien für Mindestvoraussetzungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, um als CPU zertifiziert zu werden. Wichtige Voraussetzungen sind unter anderem ein Herzkatheterlabor mit einer ständigen Verfügbarkeit (365 Tage/24 h), mindestens 4 Überwachungsplätze, eine 24-h-Anbindung an ein Notfalllabor sowie in Bezug auf die Bildgebung, die Möglichkeit zur Echokardiographie, CT und MRT (bei Verdacht auf Aortendissektion) und zur Abdomensonographie. Leitliniengerechte Behandlungspfade für den Patienten mit Brustschmerz und dem Verdacht auf ein akutes Koronarsyndrom (STEMI, NSTEMI und der instabilen AP) sollen vorliegen, um unnötige stationäre Behandlungen, aber auch den Patienten gefährdende Entlassungen zu vermeiden. Die Transferzeiten von der CPU in das Herzkatheterlabor sollen den Zeitraum von 15 min nicht überschreiten. Das betreuende Pflegepersonal und die Ärzte sollen durch ein spezielles Schulungsprogramm ausgebildet werden. Das ärztliche Personal sollte ausreichende Kenntnisse im Bereich der Echokardiographie und der internistischen Intensivmedizin besitzen. Die CPU muss von einem Kardiologen geleitet werden, und die CPU kann aus der Notfallversorgung nicht abgemeldet werden.

Abstract

The Chest Pain Unit (CPU) Task Force of the German Cardiac Society has elaborated prerequisites for a CPU certification program. To become a certified CPU, a facility must have 24-h cath lab capabilities, 24-h access to clinical chemistry, at least four intermediate care beds, and the capability for echocardiography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and abdominal ultrasound. The transfer time from the CPU to the cath lab should not exceed 15 minutes. The facility must demonstrate well-defined processes to evaluate moderate- and low-risk patients with chest pain that minimize unnecessary admissions and inappropriate discharges. This means that CPUs must have well-defined pathways when an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patient arrives at their facility, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), unstable angina (UA) and low-risk patients. Nurses and doctors in the CPU should have education and training opportunities and undergo practice drills. Doctors should have a sound knowledge of echocardiography and intensive care medicine. The Chest Pain Unit must be headed by a cardiologist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Post F, Genth-Zotz S, Munzel T (2007) Aktueller Stellenwert einer Chest Pain Unit in Deutschland. Herz 32: 435–437

    Google Scholar 

  2. Post F, Genth-Zotz S, Munzel T (2007) Versorgung des akuten Koronarsyndroms in einer Chest Pain Unit – Eine sinnvolle Neuerung in Deutschland. Klinikarzt 36: 375–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kugelmass A, Anderson A, Brown P (2004) Does having a chest pain center impact the treatment and survival of acute myocardial infarction patients? Circulation 110: 111 (Abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dougan JP, Mathew TP, Riddell JW et al. (2001) Suspected angina pectoris: a rapid-access chest pain clinic. QJM 94: 679–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodacre S, Dixon S (2005) Is a chest pain observation unit likely to be cost effective at my hospital? Extrapolation of data from a randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J 22: 418–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodacre S, Nicholl J, Dixon S et al. (2004) Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care. BMJ 328: 254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 4. Executive summary: issues with APC’s and observation services. J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 26–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 3. Evaluation in the hospital ED or chest pain center (CPC). J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 23–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 2. The strategy of the chest pain center. J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 21–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 1. Chest pain centers: past, present and future. J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 19–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Joseph AJ, Cohen AG, Bahr RD (2003) A formal, standardized and evidence-based approach to Chest Pain Center development and process improvement: the Society of Chest Pain Centers and Providers accreditation process. J Cardiovasc Manag 14: 11–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bassand JP, Hamm CW, Ardissino D et al. (2007) Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 28: 1598–1660

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Akkerhuis KM, Klootwijk PA, Lindeboom W et al. (2001) Recurrent ischaemia during continuous multilead ST-segment monitoring identifies patients with acute coronary syndromes at high risk of adverse cardiac events; meta-analysis of three studies involving 995 patients. Eur Heart J 22: 1997–2006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Holmvang L, Andersen K, Dellborg M et al. (1999) Relative contributions of a single-admission 12-lead electrocardiogram and early 24-hour continuous electrocardiographic monitoring for early risk stratification in patients with unstable coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 83: 667–674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel DJ, Holdright DR, Knight CJ et al. (1996) Early continuous ST segment monitoring in unstable angina: prognostic value additional to the clinical characteristics and the admission electrocardiogram. Heart 75: 222–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection (JCS 2006). J Cardiol 2007; 50: 547–577

  17. Erbel R, Alfonso F, Boileau C et al. (2001) Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. Eur Heart J 22: 1642–1681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Muller-Bardorff M, Rauscher T, Kampmann M et al. (1999) Quantitative bedside assay for cardiac troponin T: a complementary method to centralized laboratory testing. Clin Chem 45: 1002–1008

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamm CW (2004) Guidelines: acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 1: ACS without persistent ST segment elevations. Z Kardiol 93: 72–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Task Force on Pulmonary Embolism, European Society of Cardiology (2000) Guidelines on diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 21: 1301–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM et al. (2007) ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 50: e1–e157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamm CW (2004) Guidelines: Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). II: Acute coronary syndrome with ST-elevation. Z Kardiol 93: 324–341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF et al. (2005) Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 26: 804–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Blomkalns AL, Gibler WB (2005) Chest pain unit concept: rationale and diagnostic strategies. Cardiol Clin 23: 411–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eggebrecht H, Naber CK, Bruch C et al. (2004) Value of plasma fibrin D-dimers for detection of acute aortic dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol 44: 804–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nowak FG, Halbfass P, Hoffmann E (2007) Pulmonary embolism: clinical relevance, requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Radiologe 47: 663–672

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dietz R, Rauch B (2003) Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic coronary heart disease. Issued by the executive committee of the German Society of Cardiology – Heart Circulation Research in cooperation with the German Society for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Cardiac Diseases and the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Z Kardiol 92: 501–521

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dirschedl P, Lenz S, Lollgen H, Fahrenkrog U (1996) Validity of telephone ECG multichannel transmission. Z Kardiol 85: 677–683

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Siebens K, Moons P, De Geest S et al. (2007) The role of nurses in a chest pain unit. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 6: 265–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors
  1. F. Breuckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Post
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Giannitsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Darius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Erbel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Görge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Heusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. W. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H. Katus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Perings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. J. Senges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. N. Smetak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. T. Münzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Für die Task Force Chest Pain Unit

Additional information

___ ___

Die Autoren F. Breuckmann und F. Post trugen gleichermaßen zu dieser Arbeit bei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breuckmann, F., Post, F., Giannitsis, E. et al. Kriterien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung für „Chest-Pain-Units“. Kardiologe 2, 389–394 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12181-008-0116-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12181-008-0116-7

Schlüsselwörter

Key words

Search

Navigation