PurposeAcute aortic diseases, such as aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm, can be life-threatening vascular conditions. In this study, we compared outcomes before and after the implementation of a critical pathway (CP) for patients with acute aortic disease at the emergency department (ED).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective observational cohort study. The CP was composed of two phases: PRE-AORTA for early diagnosis and AORTA for prompt treatment. We compared patients who were diagnosed with acute aortic disease between pre-period (January 2010 to December 2011) and post-period (July 2012 to June 2014).ResultsNinety-four and 104 patients were diagnosed with acute aortic disease in the pre- and post-periods, respectively. After the implementation of the CP, 38.7% of acute aortic disease cases were diagnosed via PRE-AORTA. The door-to-CT time was reduced more in PRE-AORTA-activated patients [71.0 (61.0, 115.0) min vs. 113.0 (56.0, 170.5) min; p=0.026]. During the post-period, more patients received emergency intervention than during the pre-period (22.3% vs. 36.5%; p=0.029). Time until emergency intervention was reduced in patients, who visited the ED directly, from 378.0 (302.0, 489.0) min in the pre-period to 200.0 (170.0, 299.0) min in the post-period (p=0.001). The number of patients who died in the ED declined from 11 to 4 from the pre-period to the post-period. Hospital mortality decreased from 26.6% to 14.4% in the post-period (p=0.033).ConclusionAfter the implementation of a CP for patients with acute aortic disease, more patients received emergency intervention within a shorter time, resulting in improved hospital mortality.

PurposeST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients may visit the emergency department (ED) complaining of sensations of pain other than the chest. We investigated our performance of reperfusion therapy for STEMI patients presenting with non-chest pains.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective observational cohort study. STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were divided into a chest pain group and a non-chest pain group. Clinical differences between the two groups and the influence of presenting with non-chest pains on door-to-electrocardiograms (ECG) time, door-to-balloon time, and hospital mortality were evaluated.ResultsOf the 513 patients diagnosed with STEMI, 93 patients presented with non-chest pains. Patients in the non-chest pain group were older, more often female, and had a longer symptom onset to ED arrival time and higher Killip class than patients in the chest pain group. There was a statistically significant delay in door-to-ECG time (median, 2.0 min vs. 5.0 min; p<0.001) and door-to-balloon time (median, 57.5 min vs. 65.0 min; p<0.001) in patients without chest pain. In multivariate analysis, presenting with non-chest pains was an independent predictor for hospital mortality (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7). However, door-to-ECG time and door-to-balloon time were not factors related to hospital mortality.ConclusionSTEMI patients presenting without chest pain showed higher baseline risk and hospital mortality than patients presenting with chest pain. ECG acquisition and primary PCI was delayed for patients presenting with non-chest pains, but not influencing hospital mortality. Efforts to reduce pre-hospital time delay for these patients are necessary.

No abstract

No abstract