Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Jan 31;328(7434):254.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.37956.664236.EE. Epub 2004 Jan 14.

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

Steve Goodacre  1 , Jon Nicholl, Simon Dixon, Elizabeth Cross, Karen Angelini, Jane Arnold, Sue Revill, Tom Locker, Simon J Capewell, Deborah Quinney, Stephen Campbell, Francis Morris
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Steve Goodacre et al. BMJ. .

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 pound 78 per patient (- pound 56 to pound 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Flow of participants through the trial
Fig 2
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
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Department of Health. The national service framework for coronary heart disease. London, DoH, 2000.
    1. Panju AA, Hemmelgarn BR, Guyatt GH, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient having a myocardial infarction? JAMA 1998;280: 1256-63. - PubMed
    1. Capewell S, McMurray JJV. “Chest pain—please admit,” is there an alternative? BMJ 2000;320: 951-2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collinson PO, Premachandram S, Hashemi K. Prospective audit of incidence of prognostically important myocardial damage in patients discharged from the emergency department. BMJ 2000;320: 1702-5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pope JH, Aufderheide TP, Ruthazer R, Woolard RH, Feldman JA, Beshansky JR, et al. Missed diagnosis of acute cardiac ischaemia in the emergency department. N Engl J Med 2000;342: 1163-70. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms