• James Andrew Black, Kevin Cheng, Jo-Anne Flood, Garry Hamilton, Serena Parker, Anees Enayati, Faisal S Khan, and Tom Marwick.
• Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, TAS.
• Med. J. Aust. 2019 Apr 1; 210 (7): 321-325.

ObjectivesTo compare the outcomes and safety of a rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC) in Australia with those of a general cardiology clinic.DesignProspective comparison of the outcomes for patients attending an RACPC and those of historical controls.SettingRoyal Hobart Hospital cardiology outpatient department.Participants1914 patients referred for outpatient evaluation of new onset chest pain (1479 patients seen in the RACPC, 435 patients previously seen in the general cardiology clinic).Main Outcome MeasuresService outcomes (review times, number of clinic reviews); adverse events (unplanned emergency department re-attendances at 30 days and 12 months; major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months, including unplanned revascularisation, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, cardiac death).ResultsMedian time to review was shorter for RACPC than for usual care patients (12 days [IQR, 8-15 days] v 45 days [IQR, 27-89 days]). All patients seen in the RACPC received a diagnosis at the first clinic visit, but only 139 patients in the usual care group (32.0%). There were fewer unplanned emergency department re-attendances for patients in the RACPC group at 30 days (1.6% v 4.4%) and 12 months (5.7% v 12.9%) than in the control group. Major adverse cardiovascular events were less frequent among patients evaluated in the RACPC (0.2% v 1.4%).ConclusionsPatients were evaluated more efficiently in the RACPC than in a traditional cardiology clinic, and their subsequent rates of emergency department re-attendances and adverse cardiovascular events were lower.© 2019 AMPCo Pty Ltd.

37 keywords...

hide…