ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the choice of transportation mode to hospital in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to determine the factors influencing the use of ambulance.Design, setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary and teaching hospital in China. The study was carried out between 24 August 2015 and 24 July 2016. A total of 828 patients with ACS presented at the emergency department (ED) were included. The study population was dichotomised according to their primary mode of transport (ambulance or self-transport) to hospital. Social demographics, cardiovascular history, risk factors, prehospital medications, clinical characteristics and symptom characteristics were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the factors associated with ambulance use.ResultsWe found that only 179 (21.6%) patients with ACS chose taking ambulance to hospital. Factors associated with ambulance use were single (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.57), taking Suxiaojiuxin pills (OR 1.91, 1.31 to 2.80) or nitrates (OR 2.91, 1.70 to 4.99) before going to hospital, diagnosed as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (OR 2.43, 1.45 to 4.05), with persistent symptoms (OR 1.95, 1.33 to 2.86) and symptoms accompanied with vomiting (OR 2.35, 1.19 to 4.62). The patients who had symptoms precipitated or aggravated by exercise (OR 0.37, 0.14 to 0.98) tended to choose self-transport.ConclusionThe usage of ambulance in patients with ACS presenting to the ED was low in China. Factors like single, taking Suxiaojiuxin pills or nitrates before going to hospital, diagnosed as STEMI, accompanied with vomiting and persistent symptoms were independently associated with ambulance use. Future education programmes should focus on these factors and increase people’s knowledge on ACS and the benefits of ambulance use.

Background: Establishing registries to collect demographic characteristics, processes of care, and outcomes of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) can better understand epidemiological trends, measure care quality, and identify opportunities for improvement. This study aimed to describe the design, implementation, and scientific significance of a nationwide registry―the BASIC-OHCA (Baseline Investigation of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest)―in China. Methods: BASIC-OHCA was designed as a prospective, multicenter, observational, population-based study. The BASIC-OHCA registry was developed based on Utstein templates. BASIC-OHCA includes all OHCA patients confirmed by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel regardless of age, sex, or cause. Patients declared dead at the scene by EMS personnel for any reasons are also included. To fully characterize an OHCA event, BASIC-OHCA collects data from 3 sources—EMS, the receiving hospital, and patient follow-up—and links them to form a single record. Once data entry is completed and quality is checked, individual identifiers are stripped from the record. Results: Currently, 32 EMS agencies in 7 geographic regions contribute data to BASIC-OHCA. They are distributed in the urban and rural areas, covering ≈9% of the population of mainland China. Data collection started on August 1, 2019. By July 31, 2020, a total of 92 913 EMS-assessed OHCA patients were enrolled. Among 28969 (31.18%) EMS-treated OHCAs‚ the mean age was 65.79±17.36 years, and 68.35% were males. The majority of OHCAs (76.85%) occurred at home or residence. A shockable initial rhythm was reported in 5.43% of patients. Any return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, and favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge were 5.98%, 1.15%, and 0.83%, respectively. Conclusions: BASIC-OHCA is the first nationwide registry on OHCA in China. It can be used as a public health surveillance system and as a platform to produce evidence-based practices to help identify opportunities for improvement. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03926325.

Background Triage decisions for chest pain patients receiving usual care are based on a dynamic and comprehensive strategy performed in the physician's mind. It remains controversial whether simple, structured risk tools can surpass real, complex judgments. Hypothesis The potentially used History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART) score would help identify low‐risk patients for discharge. Methods Patients with acute, non‐traumatic chest pain managed according to usual care were consecutively enrolled in a tertiary university hospital in China from August 24, 2015 to September 30, 2017. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) included death, acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, and significant coronary stenosis (>50%) within 30 days. We compared the efficacy and safety of usual care and the potentially used HEART score in this population. Results Of 2185 patients analyzed, 926 (42.4%) patients were directly discharged by usual care, whereas HEART≤3 would have identified 524 (24.0%) patients as low‐risk (P < .001). The MACE rate in discharged patients was 2.2% (20/926) and would have been 5.2% (27/524) in those with HEART≤3 (P = .002). For discharged patients, the MACE rates in HEART≤3 vs HEART>3 groups were not significantly different (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = .225). Negative predictive value (NPV) was higher with usual care than with the HEART score (P = .003), but sensitivity was similar. For 340 patients with serial troponins, usual care was superior to the potentially used HEART score in regard to efficacy. Conclusions At this institution, usual care identified many more patients for discharge than the HEART score would have without apparently different outcomes in discharged patients with lower vs higher HEART scores. The HEART score would not appear to provide helpful risk stratification.