BMJ  2004;328:254 (31 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.37956.664236.EE (published 14 January 2004)

Paper

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care

¹ School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, ² Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, ³ Department of Cardiology, Northern General Hospital, ⁴ Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB

Abstract

Objectives To measure the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of providing care in a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care for patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain.

Design Cluster randomised controlled trial, with 442 days randomised to the chest pain observation unit or routine care, and cost effectiveness analysis from a health service costing perspective.

Setting The emergency department at the Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Participants 972 patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain (479 attending on days when care was delivered in the chest pain observation unit, 493 on days of routine care) followed up until six months after initial attendance.

Main outcome measures The proportion of participants admitted to hospital, the proportion with acute coronary syndrome sent home inappropriately, major adverse cardiac events over six months, health utility, hospital reattendance and readmission, and costs per patient to the health service.

Results Use of a chest pain observation unit reduced the proportion of patients admitted from 54% to 37% (difference 17%, odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.001) and the proportion discharged with acute coronary syndrome from 14% to 6% (8%, -7% to 23%, P = 0.264). Rates of cardiac event were unchanged. Care in the chest pain observation unit was associated with improved health utility during follow up (0.0137 quality adjusted life years gained, 95% confidence interval 0.0030 to 0.0254, P = 0.022) and a saving of £78 per patient (-£56 to £210, P = 0.252).

Conclusions Care in a chest pain observation unit can improve outcomes and may reduce costs to the health service. It seems to be more effective and more cost effective than routine care.

Introduction

The concept of the chest pain observation unit has been developed to address problems in the assessment of patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.^{1 2} Patients with chest pain for which no definite diagnosis has been made after clinical assessment, electrocardiogram, and chest radiograph receive several hours of observation, electrocardiography, and measurement of biochemical cardiac markers, followed by provocative cardiac testing where appropriate. Patients with positive tests are admitted to hospital, whereas those with negative tests may safely be discharged home. This approach aims to improve care by providing a more rigorous diagnostic assessment while reducing costs to the health service by avoiding unnecessary admissions to hospital.

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of care in a chest pain observation unit. The specific objectives were to measure the effect of care in the chest pain observation unit on admission to hospital for undifferentiated chest pain, inappropriate discharge home with acute coronary syndrome, health utility, major adverse cardiac events, and reattendance at and readmission to hospital; and to measure the cost effectiveness of care in the chest pain observation unit compared with routine care.

Methods

We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing care in a chest pain observation unit with routine care in the emergency department of the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, United Kingdom. From 5 February 2001 to 5 May 2002 we randomised days to either care in the chest pain observation unit or routine care, according to a block randomisation schedule. Only research staff and chest pain nurses had access to this schedule. Patients presenting on days when the chest pain observation unit was open were managed according to the unit's protocols; patients presenting on other days received routine care.

Intervention: chest pain observation unit
The chest pain observation unit was based in the emergency department and consisted of two monitored bays and an adjacent area of unmonitored bays. It was staffed by three chest pain nurses providing care from 9 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday to Friday, and 10 00 am to 6 00 pm at weekends. Patients attending outside these hours could be admitted and complete their assessment the following day. Middle grade emergency department staff provided medical cover.

We selected patients according to validated clinical predictors^{3 4} and offered assessment consisting of two to six hours of ST segment monitoring⁵ and hourly electrocardiography, measurement of biochemical cardiac markers (CK-MB(mass) on arrival and at least two hours later,⁶ and troponin T at least six hours after onset of symptoms),⁷ and exercise treadmill testing.⁸ Patients with positive tests were admitted; those with negative tests were discharged.

Control: routine care
Patients were managed at the discretion of the emergency department medical staff. The emergency department has access to CK-MB(mass) and troponin T assays with a turnaround time of one hour. If patients required observation or further testing they were admitted to hospital.

Reception staff recorded the presenting complaint of all patients attending the emergency department. The chest pain nurses then identified all patients presenting with a specific list of chest pain related complaints and excluded patients with changes to their electrocardiogram that were diagnostic for acute coronary syndrome, clinically diagnosed unstable angina, comorbidity, or a serious alternative cause for chest pain; and patients who were younger than 25, with a negligible risk of coronary heart disease, or who were unable to take part in the trial or provide consent.

Follow up consisted of a clinic run by the chest pain nurses some 48 hours after initial attendance, at which an electrocardiogram was recorded and troponin T concentration measured. Postal questionnaires for completion by each patient were provided at 48 hours and one month, for return to the medical care research unit. At six months we searched the hospital computer system for evidence of attendance at the emergency department or admission to hospital, and reviewed the case notes. Finally, a research assistant telephoned each participant to collect further follow up information.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants admitted to hospital. A key secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were discharged home inappropriately. We defined acute coronary syndrome as a raised concentration of troponin T (> 0.03 ng/ml) at follow up. Other outcome measures were the major adverse cardiac event rate (cardiac death, life threatening arrhythmia, heart failure requiring admission to hospital, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or revascularisation procedure); health utility, as measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire at two days, one month, and six months; and reattendance at or readmission to hospital.

Cost effectiveness analysis
We identified and measured costs from a health service perspective. Over the following six months we measured use of resources related to the initial attendance: care in the emergency department, initial admission to hospital, reviews of outpatients, investigations related to chest pain, reattendances, readmissions, and cardiac procedures. To value resources we used UK national unit costs where available^{9 10} and local costs elsewhere.

We used EQ-5D and six month survival data to measure outcomes. We calculated the area under the curve for health utility to generate estimates of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued over six months. We used regression to impute missing data and undertook a sensitivity analysis to explore the effect of using different methods for handling missing data. We compared the costs and outcomes for care in the chest pain observation unit with routine care, and estimated the incremental cost effectiveness of care in the chest pain observation unit.

Statistical analysis
The principal analysis used multilevel random effects modelling to adjust for clustering by day of week, but not confounding. Secondary analysis adjusted for potential confounding by age, sex, and history of coronary heart disease (determined a priori to be potentially important prognostic factors) and any other characteristic that either showed significant baseline imbalance or predicted outcome. We derived cost effectiveness estimates from 1000 bootstrap estimates of the difference between the mean costs and QALYs accrued after care in the chest pain observation unit and routine care.

Results

Figure 1 shows the CONSORT diagram for the trial. Source of referral, smoking status, and electrocardiogram at presentation showed significant baseline imbalance between the study groups (see bmj.com). Adjusted analyses included these covariates, along with age, sex, and past history of coronary heart disease.

View larger version (49K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 1 Flow of participants through the trial

 

The proportion admitted was 36.7% (176/479) of patients receiving care in the chest pain observation unit and 53.8% (265/493) receiving routine care (odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.001, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.001). Adjustment for confounding did not alter this result (adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 0.36 to 0.65, P < 0.001).

Seventy patients had a raised concentration of troponin T at follow up (mean concentration 0.65 ng/ml, median concentration 0.29 ng/ml, 57/70 (81.4%) > 0.1 ng/ml). Seven (10%) had been discharged home: 2/34 (5.9%) who received care in the chest pain observation unit and 5/36 (13.9%) who received routine care (difference 8.0%, -7.3% to 23.4%, P = 0.264).

A total of 35 patients had a major adverse cardiac event during follow up (3.6%): 18 (3.8%) from the group receiving care in the chest pain observation unit and 17 (3.4%) from the group receiving routine care (difference 0.4%, -2.0 to 2.7, P = 0.796).

From the EQ-5D scores, the mean area under the curve for health utility was calculated to be 0.3936 QALYs after care in the chest pain observation unit and 0.3799 QALYs after routine care (difference 0.0137 QALYs, 95% confidence interval 0.0030 to 0.0254, P = 0.022; adjusted difference 0.0143 QALYs, 0.0031 to 0.0255, P = 0.012). The intraclass correlation coefficient was zero for all health utility analyses. The results were robust to sensitivity analysis according to the method of handling missing data.

Over the six month follow up period, 61 participants (12.7%) in the group receiving care in the chest pain observation unit and 85 (17.2%) in the group receiving routine care reattended the emergency department (odds ratio for reattendance after chest pain observation unit care 0.65, P = 0.05; adjusted odds ratio 0.66, P = 0.061). Over the same time, 37 participants (7.7%) in the chest pain observation unit group and 52 (10.5%) in the routine care group were readmitted to hospital (odds ratio 0.67, P = 0.122; adjusted odds ratio 0.65, P = 0.126).

The mean cost per patient for chest pain related care over six months was £478 for the chest pain observation unit group and £556 for the routine care group (difference £78 per patient, -£56 to £210, P = 0.252; intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.046; adjusted difference £53 per patient, -£88 to £194, P = 0.462). The table shows the breakdown of costs. Higher initial costs for care in the chest pain observation unit were offset by lower costs for hospital admission and follow up.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Breakdown of costs over six months for groups receiving care in the chest pain observation unit and routine care

 

Figure 2 shows the cost effect pairs plotted on the cost effectiveness plane.¹¹ Each represents a bootstrap estimate of the difference in mean cost (y axis) and mean effect (x axis) of care in the chest pain observation unit compared with routine care (positive values indicate that the chest pain observation unit is more effective and more expensive). This shows that, although care in the chest pain observation unit is very likely to be more effective than routine care, considerable uncertainty prevails regarding comparative costs, with the 95% confidence interval including the possibility of the chest pain observation unit being more expensive. However, if we are willing to pay £2750 per QALY gained by care in the chest pain observation unit then the probability that the chest pain observation unit will be considered cost effective is 95%.¹²

View larger version (48K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig 2 Cost effectiveness plane for care in the chest pain observation unit compared with routine care based on 1000 bootstrap estimates of the difference in costs and QALYs. The vertical and horizontal bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals for cost and effect differences. The ellipse indicates the 95% confidence interval for cost effectiveness

 

Discussion

Main findings
Care in the chest pain observation unit reduced the number of admissions to hospital and reattendance at the emergency department, and improved health utility over the following six months. This difference in health utility represents a 2.7% improvement in quality of life over the six month follow up. Although we detected no significant differences in inappropriate discharges with acute coronary syndrome, readmissions to hospital, or costs to the health service, in each case the point estimate favoured the chest pain observation unit. Rates of major adverse cardiac events were almost identical in the two groups.

Cost effectiveness
From an economic viewpoint, mean estimates show that the chest pain observation unit provides improved outcomes at lower cost. Substantial uncertainty surrounds the cost estimate. The chest pain observation unit may be more expensive. If it is, there is a 95% probability that the chest pain observation unit will be cost effective, given willingness to pay £2750 per QALY gained. This is much lower than the value of £30 000 per QALY that seems to guide decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.¹²

Comparison with other studies
Previous studies of cost effectiveness have compared care in a chest pain observation unit with inpatient treatment.^13-15 Our study shows that such a comparison is inappropriate because 46% of the patients receiving routine care were not admitted to hospital. Consequently, the estimated cost savings generated by our study were lower and subject to greater uncertainty than previous estimates. We showed noteworthy improvements in health utility associated with the chest pain observation unit. These data cannot explain why, but the chest pain observation unit may provide greater reassurance through a more rigorous diagnostic work-up. If this is so, the chest pain observation unit may be justified by improving outcome, rather than simply reducing costs.

What is already known on this subject Chest pain observation units have the potential to improve care for patients presenting with acute, undifferentiated chest pain and reduce costs to the health service Care in the chest pain observation unit is safe and practical, but reliable evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness is lacking What this study adds Care in the chest pain observation unit reduces hospital admissions without increasing inappropriate discharges with an acute coronary syndrome Health utility is improved while costs to the health service are reduced Care in the chest pain observation unit is therefore more effective and more cost effective than routine care

Limitations
Since randomisation takes place before recruitment and consent to participate, it is possible for selection bias to influence results. We attempted to reduce this possibility by rigorous recording of selection criteria and by adjusting for known confounders in secondary analyses. This cannot, however, completely rule out the potential influence of selection bias. Secondly, since it is impossible to blind participants to the fact that they are receiving care in the chest pain observation unit or routine care, it is possible that a measure reported by patients, such as the EQ-5D, may be influenced by the patients' awareness that they are receiving "new" or routine care. Finally, further research is required before we can generalise the results from the Northern General chest pain observation unit to other hospitals.¹⁶

---

This is the abridged version of an article that was posted on bmj.com on 14 January 2004: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.37956.664236.EE

Acknowledgments: We thank the staff of the Northern General Hospital departments of emergency medicine, acute medicine, and cardiology for their help with this project. We thank Brian Morris for support with chemical pathology services and Stephen Walters for additional statistical advice

Contributors: See bmj.com

Funding: The Northern General Hospital received a grant of £94 000 from the Department of Health to establish the chest pain observation unit. The study was supported by a £30 000 grant from NHS Trent Policy and Practice research funds. SG was funded by a NHS Trent Health Services research fellowship. DQ was funded by Merseyside Health Action Zone.

Competing interests: SG, FM, SC, KA, JA, SR, and TL were involved in establishing and developing the Northern General Hospital chest pain observation unit. KA, JA, and SR are currently employed as chest pain nurses running this chest pain observation unit. JN, SD, EC, SJC, and DQ have no competing interests to declare.

Ethical approval: North Sheffield Research Ethics Committee.

References

1. Clancy M. Chest pain units. BMJ 2002;325: 116-7.[Free Full Text]
2. Goodacre SW. Should we establish chest pain observation units in the United Kingdom? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature. J Accid Emerg Med 2000;17: 1-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Goldman L, Cook EF, Brand DA, Lee TH, Rouan GW, Weisberg MC, et al. A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with chest pain. N Engl J Med 1988;318: 797-803.[Abstract]
4. Pozen MW, D'Agostino RB, Selker HP, Sytkowski PA, Hood WB. A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischaemic heart disease. A prospective multicenter study. N Engl J Med 1984;310: 1273-8.[Abstract]
5. Fesmire FM, Percy RF, Bardoner JB, Wharton DR, Calhoun FB. Usefulness of automated serial 12-lead ECG monitoring during the initial emergency department evaluation of patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31: 3-11.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Fesmire FM, Percy RF, Bardoner JB, Wharton DR, Calhoun FB. Serial creatinine kinase (CK) MB testing during the emergency department evaluation of chest pain: utility of a 2-hour deltaCK-MB of +1.6ng/ml. Am Heart J 1998;136: 237-44.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Hamm CW, Goldman BW, Heeschen C, Kreymann G, Berger J, Meinertz T. Emergency room triage of patients with acute chest pain by means of rapid testing for cardiac troponin T or troponin I. N Engl J Med 1997;337: 1648-53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Kirk JD, Turnipseed S, Lewis RL, Amsterdam EA. Evaluation of chest pain in low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department: the role of immediate exercise testing. Ann Emerg Med 1998;32: 1-7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9. Department of Health. National schedule of reference costs. London: DoH, 2002. www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/refcosts.htm (accessed 15 Dec 2002).
10. Netten A, Rees T, Harrison, G. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2001.
11. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998;7: 723-40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001;323: 1300-3.[Free Full Text]
13. Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, Zinsmeister AR, Evans RW, Meloy TD, et al. A clinical trial of a chest pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. N Engl J Med 1998;339: 1882-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Roberts RR, Zalenski RJ, Mensah EK, Rydman RJ, Ciavarella G, Gussow L, et al. Costs of an emergency department-based accelerated diagnostic protocol vs hospitalization in patients with chest pain. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1997;278: 1670-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Gomez MA, Anderson JL, Karagounis LA, Muhlestein JB, Mooers FB. An emergency department-based protocol for rapidly ruling out myocardial ischaemia reduces hospital time and expense: results of a randomized study (ROMIO). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28: 25-33.[Abstract]
16. Goodacre S, Nicholl J, Beahan J, Quinney D, Capewell S. National survey of emergency department management of patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain. Br J Cardiol 2003;10: 50-4.[CrossRef]

(Accepted 13 November 2003)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Information sheets for patients with acute chest pain: randomised controlled trial

Jane Arnold, Steve Goodacre, Peter Bath, and Jonathan Price
BMJ 2009 338: b541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Effectiveness and safety of chest pain assessment to prevent emergency admissions: ESCAPE cluster randomised trial

Steve Goodacre, Elizabeth Cross, Cath Lewis, Jon Nicholl, Simon Capewell ESCAPE Research Team
BMJ 2007 335: 659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Acute chest pain? Better go to a chest pain unit
BMJ 2004 328: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Goodacre, S, Pett, P, Arnold, J, Chawla, A, Hollingsworth, J, Roe, D, Crowder, S, Mann, C, Pitcher, D, Brett, C (2009). Clinical diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome in patients with chest pain and a normal or non-diagnostic electrocardiogram. Emerg. Med. J. 26: 866-870 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Iannone, P, Lenzi, T (2009). Effectiveness of a multipurpose observation unit: before and after study. Emerg. Med. J. 26: 407-414 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Madsen, T E, Bledsoe, J R, Bossart, P J (2009). Observation unit admission as an alternative to inpatient admission for trauma activation patients. Emerg. Med. J. 26: 421-423 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hoffmann, U., Bamberg, F. (2009). Is Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography the Most Accurate and Effective Noninvasive Imaging Tool to Evaluate Patients With Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department?: CT Coronary Angiography Is the Most Accurate and Effective Noninvasive Imaging Tool for Evaluating Patients Presenting With Chest Pain to the Emergency Department. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2: 251-263 [Full text]  
• Macy, M. L., Stanley, R. M., Lozon, M. M., Sasson, C., Gebremariam, A., Davis, M. M. (2009). Trends in High-Turnover Stays Among Children Hospitalized in the United States, 1993-2003. Pediatrics 123: 996-1002 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Arnold, J., Goodacre, S., Bath, P., Price, J. (2009). Information sheets for patients with acute chest pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338: b541-b541 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rosengren, A. (2008). Psychology in chest pain. Heart 94: 266-267 [Full text]  
• Ekelund, U, Forberg, J L (2008). New methods for improved evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department. Postgrad. Med. J. 84: 83-86 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Miro, OŇ, Bragulat, E, Sanchez, M (2008). Are European EDs unenthusiastic about chest pain units?. Emerg. Med. J. 25: 59-60 [Full text]  
• Ekelund, U, Forberg, J L (2007). New methods for improved evaluation of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department. Emerg. Med. J. 24: 811-814 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• White, C. S., Kuo, D. (2007). Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: Role of Multidetector CT. Radiology 245: 672-681 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Clancy, M. (2007). Effectiveness of chest pain units. BMJ 335: 623-624 [Full text]  
• Goodacre, S., Cross, E., Lewis, C., Nicholl, J., Capewell, S., ESCAPE Research Team, (2007). Effectiveness and safety of chest pain assessment to prevent emergency admissions: ESCAPE cluster randomised trial. BMJ 335: 659-659 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Katz, D. A., Dawson, J., Beshansky, J. R., Rahko, P. S., Aufderheide, T. P., Bogner, M., Tighouart, H., Selker, H. P. (2007). Does Concordance with Guideline Triage Recommendations Affect Clinical Care of Patients with Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome?. Med Decis Making 27: 423-437 [Abstract]  
• Arnold, J., Goodacre, S., Morris, F., on behalf of the ESCAPE Research Team, (2007). Structure, process and outcomes of chest pain units established in the ESCAPE Trial. Emerg. Med. J. 24: 462-466 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Arnold, J, Goodacre, S (2007). Should exercise treadmill testing be provided in the emergency department?. Emerg. Med. J. 24: 151-151 [Full text]  
• Cross, E., How, S., Goodacre, S. (2007). Development of acute chest pain services in the UK. Emerg. Med. J. 24: 100-102 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jeetley, P., Burden, L., Stoykova, B., Senior, R. (2007). Clinical and economic impact of stress echocardiography compared with exercise electrocardiography in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome but negative troponin: a prospective randomized controlled study. Eur Heart J 0: ehl444v1-8 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Conway Morris, A, Caesar, D, Gray, S, Gray, A (2006). TIMI risk score accurately risk stratifies patients with undifferentiated chest pain presenting to an emergency department.. Heart 92: 1333-1334 [Full text]  
• Dunn, F, Hughes, D, Rocke, L G R, McNicholl, B P (2006). Are chest pain observation units essential for rapid and effective emergency care in the UK?. Emerg. Med. J. 23: 487-488 [Full text]  
• MacIntyre, K, Murphy, N F, Chalmers, J, Capewell, S, Frame, S, Finlayson, A, Pell, J, Redpath, A, McMurray, J J V (2006). Hospital burden of suspected acute coronary syndromes: recent trends.. Heart 92: 691-692 [Full text]  
• Collinson, P O, Gaze, D C, Bainbridge, K, Morris, F, Morris, B, Price, A, Goodacre, S (2006). Utility of admission cardiac troponin and "Ischemia Modified Albumin" measurements for rapid evaluation and rule out of suspected acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department.. Emerg. Med. J. 23: 256-261 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• 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 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Goodacre, S, Cross, E, Arnold, J, Angelini, K, Capewell, S, Nicholl, J (2005). The health care burden of acute chest pain. Heart 91: 229-230 [Full text]  
• Goodacre, S. (2004). Acute coronary syndromes. CMAJ 171: 1322-1322 [Full text]  
• Christenson, J., Innes, G., Boychuk, B., Gin, K. (2004). Acute coronary syndromes. CMAJ 171: 1322-1323 [Full text]  
• Malik, I. (2004). JournalScan. Heart 90: 471-472 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

There are a thousand suns....

Sergio Stagnaro
bmj.com, 30 Jan 2004 [Full text]

'Chest Pain Observation Unit' is a Misnomer

Edward J Jones
bmj.com, 5 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Chest pain observation unit is what it says

Andrew P Webster
bmj.com, 5 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Chest pain observation units - are they necessary?

Brian P McNicholl, et al.
bmj.com, 10 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Another clinical perspective for the evaluation of chest pain

M E Nassar, M.D., Ph.D.
bmj.com, 21 Feb 2004 [Full text]

Managing chest pain: beyond cardiac causes

Peter OL Unge
bmj.com, 31 Mar 2004 [Full text]

why not bring the benefits of CPOU to our routine practice

Mohammed A M SIDDIQUI
bmj.com, 30 Mar 2007 [Full text]

CPOU : Reliable care of intermediate risk cardiovascular event

Kaushik Sanyal
bmj.com, 2 Apr 2007 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>