Der Kardiologe

, Volume 2, Issue 5, pp 389–394

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

  • F. Breuckmann
  • F. Post
  • E. Giannitsis
  • H. Darius
  • R. Erbel
  • G. Görge
  • G. Heusch
  • W. Jung
  • H. Katus
  • S. Perings
  • J. Senges
  • N. Smetak
  • T. Münzel
  • Für die Task Force Chest Pain Unit
Empfehlungen

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.

Schlüsselwörter

Chest-Pain-Unit Zertifizierung Akutes Koronarsyndrom ACS 

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

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.

Key words

Chest Pain Unit Certification Process Acute coronary syndrome ACS 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Post F, Genth-Zotz S, Munzel T (2007) Aktueller Stellenwert einer Chest Pain Unit in Deutschland. Herz 32: 435–437Google Scholar
  2. 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: 375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Dougan JP, Mathew TP, Riddell JW et al. (2001) Suspected angina pectoris: a rapid-access chest pain clinic. QJM 94: 679–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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: 418–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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: 254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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: 26–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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: 23–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 2. The strategy of the chest pain center. J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 21–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bahr RD, Copeland C, Strong J (2002) Chest pain centers – Part 1. Chest pain centers: past, present and future. J Cardiovasc Manag 13: 19–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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: 11–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 1598–1660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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: 1997–2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 667–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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: 222–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection (JCS 2006). J Cardiol 2007; 50: 547–577Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erbel R, Alfonso F, Boileau C et al. (2001) Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. Eur Heart J 22: 1642–1681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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: 1002–1008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamm CW (2004) Guidelines: acute coronary syndrome (ACS). 1: ACS without persistent ST segment elevations. Z Kardiol 93: 72–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Task Force on Pulmonary Embolism, European Society of Cardiology (2000) Guidelines on diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 21: 1301–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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–e157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamm CW (2004) Guidelines: Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). II: Acute coronary syndrome with ST-elevation. Z Kardiol 93: 324–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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: 804–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blomkalns AL, Gibler WB (2005) Chest pain unit concept: rationale and diagnostic strategies. Cardiol Clin 23: 411–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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: 804–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nowak FG, Halbfass P, Hoffmann E (2007) Pulmonary embolism: clinical relevance, requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Radiologe 47: 663–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 501–521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dirschedl P, Lenz S, Lollgen H, Fahrenkrog U (1996) Validity of telephone ECG multichannel transmission. Z Kardiol 85: 677–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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: 265–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Breuckmann
  • F. Post
  • E. Giannitsis
  • H. Darius
  • R. Erbel
  • G. Görge
  • G. Heusch
  • W. Jung
  • H. Katus
  • S. Perings
  • J. Senges
  • N. Smetak
  • T. Münzel
  • Für die Task Force Chest Pain Unit

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations