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.

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at http://www.hta.ac.uk/project/htapubs.asp. Print copies can be purchased from the individual report pages. criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Hta programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA programme findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.hta.ac.uk/ this reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 09/22/21. The contractual start date was in July 2010. The draft report began editorial review in January 2012 and was accepted for publication in June 2012. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health.

Abstract. Objectives: To measure the predictive value and diagnostic performance of clinical features used to diagnose coronary syndromes in patients presenting with acute, undifferentiated chest pain. Methods: The clinical features of patients presenting to the authors' chest pain unit with acute, undifferentiated chest pain were prospectively recorded on a standard form. Admitted patients were followed up by case note review. Discharged patients were followed up as outpatients three days later. Six months after the emergency department visit, evidence of adverse events was searched for from the hospital computer database, case notes, and the patient's primary care physician. The authors tested the power of each feature to predict: 1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) by World Health Organization criteria, and 2) any acute coronary syndrome (ACS), evidenced by cardiac testing, AMI, arrhythmia, death, or revacsularization procedure within six months. Results:

D-dimer has good sensitivity, but poor specificity, for DVT. Estimates are subject to substantial heterogeneity from various sources. D-dimer specificity appears to be strongly dependent upon the pre-test clinical probability of DVT.

Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome is not uncommon in the emergency department. Its early recognition and initial treatment allows rapid restoration to sinus rhythm. Prompt referral to cardiology is essential for risk stratification through electrophysiological studies.