Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Update 2015

Criteria of the German Cardiac Society for chest pain units

Update 2015

  • Empfehlungen und Stellungnahmen
  • Published:
Der Kardiologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Seit 2008 baut die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie ein Netzwerk von zertifizierten Chest Pain Units (CPU) auf. Generelles Ziel einer CPU ist es, einen akuten oder neu aufgetretenen unklaren Thoraxschmerz rasch und zielgerichtet abzuklären und umgehend therapeutische Maßnahmen einzuleiten. Grundlage für den bisherigen Zertifizierungsprozess waren Kriterien, die von der Task Force CPU festgelegt und veröffentlicht worden sind. Sie regeln die räumlichen und apparativen Voraussetzungen sowie die diagnostischen und therapeutischen Maßnahmen bei Patienten mit akutem Brustschmerz. Weiterhin werden die Anforderungen an Kooperationspartner sowie die Ausbildungsvoraussetzungen des Personals einer CPU festgelegt. Der Prozess der Zertifizierung wird von der DGK durchgeführt. Mittlerweile sind 206 CPUs zertifiziert und insgesamt 128 CPUs nach einem Zeitraum von 3 Jahren rezertifiziert worden. Aktuell wurden die Zertifizierungskriterien überarbeitet und entsprechend neuen Leitlinien aktualisiert.

Abstract

Since 2008 the German Cardiac Society (DGK) has been establishing a network of certified chest pain units (CPUs). The goal of CPUs was and is to carry out differential diagnostics of acute or newly occurring chest pain of undetermined origin in a rapid and goal-oriented manner and to take immediate therapeutic measures. The basis for the previous certification process were criteria that have been established and published by the task force on CPUs. These criteria regulate the spatial and technical requirements and determine diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in patients with chest pain. Furthermore, the requirements for the organization of CPUs and the training requirements for the staff of a CPU are defined. The certification process is carried out by the DGK and currently 206 CPUs are certified and 128 CPUs have been recertified after running for a period of 3 years. The certification criteria have now been revised and updated according to new guidelines.

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.

Literatur

  1. Breuckmann F, Post F, Giannitsis E et al (2008) Kriterien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie - Herz- und Kreislaufforschung für „Chest-Pain-Units“. Kardiologe 2(5):389–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. http://cpu.dgk.org/index.php?id=158

  3. Perings S, Smetak M, Block M et al (2010) Konsensuspapier der Task Force „Brustschmerz.Ambulanz“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie - Herz- und Kreislaufforschung. Kardiologe 4:208–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S et al (2011) ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 32(23):2999–3054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arntz HR, Bossaert LL, Danchin N, Nikolaou NI (2010) European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 5. Initial management of acute coronary syndromes. Resuscitation 81(10):1353–1363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keller T, Post F, Tzikas S et al (2010) Improved outcome in acute coronary syndrome by establishing a chest pain unit. Clin Res Cardiol 99(3):149–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Post F, Genth-Zotz S, Munzel T (2007) Aktueller Stellenwert einer Chest Pain Unit in Deutschland. Herz 32(5):435–437

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Dougan JP, Mathew TP, Riddell JW et al (2001) Suspected angina pectoris: a rapid-access chest pain clinic. QJM 94(12):679–686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(6):418–422

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(7434):254

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tzikas S, Keller T, Post F et al (2010) Patient satisfaction in acute coronary syndrome. Improvement through the establishment of a chest pain unit. Herz 35(6):403–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. http://cpu.dgk.org/index.php?id=274

  15. Post F, Giannitsis E, Riemer T et al (2012) Pre- and early in-hospital procedures in patients with acute coronary syndromes: first results of the „German chest pain unit registry“. Clin Res Cardiol 101(12):983–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maier LS, Darius H, Giannitsis E et al (2013) The German CPU registry: comparison of troponin positive to troponin negative patients. Int J Cardiol 168(2):1651–1653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(21):1997–2006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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(5):667–674

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA et al (2010) ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Circulation 121(13):e266–e369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Erbel R, Alfonso F, Boileau C et al (2001) Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. Eur Heart J 22(18):1642–1681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Torbicki A, Perrier A, Konstantinides S et al (2008) Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 29(18):2276–2315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al (2012) ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 33(20):2569–2619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Keller T, Zeller T, Peetz D et al (2009) Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 361(9):868–877

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kurz K, Giannitsis E, Becker M et al (2011) Comparison of the new high sensitive cardiac troponin T with myoglobin, h-FABP and cTnT for early identification of myocardial necrosis in the acute coronary syndrome. Clin Res Cardiol 100(3):209–215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bandstein N, Ljung R, Johansson M, Holzmann MJ (2014) Undetectable high sensitivity cardiac troponin t level in the emergency department and risk of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 63:2569–2578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Body R, Carley S, McDowell G et al (2011) Rapid exclusion of acute myocardial infarction in patients with undetectable troponin using a high-sensitivity assay. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(13):1332–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B et al (2012) One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med 172(16):1211–1218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cullen L, Mueller C, Parsonage WA et al (2013) Validation of high-sensitivity troponin I in a 2-hour diagnostic strategy to assess 30-day outcomes in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 62(14):1242–1249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maisel A, Mueller C, Neath SX et al (2013) Copeptin helps in the early detection of patients with acute myocardial infarction: primary results of the CHOPIN trial (Copeptin Helps in the early detection Of Patients with acute myocardial INfarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 62(2):150–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mockel M, Searle J, Hamm C et al (2015) Early discharge using single cardiac troponin and copeptin testing in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS): a randomized, controlled clinical process study. Eur Heart J 7;36(6):369–376

  31. Blomkalns AL, Gibler WB (2005) Chest pain unit concept: rationale and diagnostic strategies. Cardiol Clin 23(4):411–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. http://www.outcomes-umassmed.org/grace/

  33. Hamm CW (2009) Kommentar zu den Leitlinien der European Society of Cardiology (ESC) zur Diagnose und Therapie des akuten Koronarsyndroms ohne ST-Strecken-Hebung (NSTE-ACS). Kardiologe 3(2):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE et al (2009) Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 360(21):2165–2175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Penaloza A, Melot C, Motte S (2011) Comparison of the Wells score with the simplified revised Geneva score for assessing pretest probability of pulmonary embolism. Thromb Res 127(2):81–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shirakabe A, Hata N, Yokoyama S et al (2008) Diagnostic score to differentiate acute aortic dissection in the emergency room. Circ J 72(6):986–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Uthoff H, Staub D, Socrates T et al (2010) PROCAM-, FRAMINGHAM-, SCORE- and SMART-risk score for predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with overt atherosclerosis. Vasa 39(4):325–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN et al (2006) Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 48(7):1319–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E et al (2008) Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA 300(1):71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dirschedl P, Lenz S, Lollgen H, Fahrenkrog U (1996) Validity of telephone ECG multichannel transmission. Z Kardiol 85(9):677–683

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Siebens K, Moons P, De Geest S et al (2007) The role of nurses in a chest pain unit. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 6(4):265–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Breuckmann F, Post F, Erbel R, Munzel T (2009) Acute thoracic pain: chest pain unit – the certification campaign of the German Society of Cardiology. Herz 34(3):218–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Illmann A, Riemer T, Erbel R et al (2014) Disease distribution and outcome in troponin-positive patients with or without revascularization in a chest pain unit: results of the German CPU-Registry. Clin Res Cardiol 103(1):29–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nowak B, Giannitsis E, Riemer T et al (2012) Self-referral to chest pain units: results of the German CPU-registry. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 1(4):312–319

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Post F, Gori T, Senges J et al (2012) Establishment and progress of the chest pain unit certification process in Germany and the local experiences of Mainz. Eur Heart J 33(6):682–686

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F et al (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35(37):2541–2619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Den Interessenkonflikt der Autoren finden Sie online auf der DGK-Homepage unter http://leitlinien.dgk.org/ bei der entsprechenden Publikation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Innere Medizin/Kardiologie, Kath. Klinikum Koblenz-Montabaur-Marienhof, Koblenz, Deutschland

    F. Post

  2. Innere Med. III, Kardiologie, Angiologie u. Pneumologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    E. Giannitsis

  3. Klinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und Konservative Intensivmedizin, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Deutschland

    H. Darius

  4. Klinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie, Pneumologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Herzzentrum der Universität zu Köln, Köln, Deutschland

    S. Baldus

  5. Medizinische Klinik I – Kardiologie und Angiologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Gießen, Deutschland

    C.W. Hamm

  6. Klinik für Kardiologie und Angiologie, Klinikum Links der Weser gGmbH, Bremen, Deutschland

    R. Hambrecht

  7. Klinik für Kardiologie und Allg. Innere Medizin, Städt. Klinikum Solingen, Solingen, Deutschland

    H.M. Hoffmeister

  8. Innere Med. III, Kardiologie, Angiologie u. Pneumologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    H.A. Katus

  9. CardioCentrum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland

    S. Perings

  10. Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland

    J. Senges

  11. ll. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    T. Münzel

Authors
  1. F. Post
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Giannitsis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Darius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Baldus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C.W. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Hambrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H.M. Hoffmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H.A. Katus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S. Perings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. Senges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. T. Münzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Münzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Post, F., Giannitsis, E., Darius, H. et al. Kriterien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung für „Chest Pain Units“. Kardiologe 9, 171–181 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12181-014-0646-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12181-014-0646-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation