BackgroundFast and accurate chest pain risk stratification in the emergency department (ED) is critical. The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in this population, dividing it in three risk categories. We aimed to describe the population with chest pain, to characterize the subgroup of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to assess the prognostic value of Manchester triage system and of HEART score.MethodsRetrospective observational study including patients admitted to the ED of a tertiary hospital with chest pain as the presenting symptom. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or unscheduled revascularization at 6 weeks.ResultsWe enrolled 233 patients (age 58 ± 19; 55.4 % males). The most common final diagnosis was non-specific chest pain (n = 86, 36.9 %), followed by ACS (n = 22, 9.4 %). Male gender, smoking and chronic kidney disease were associated with higher risk of ACS. According to Manchester triage system, chest pain patients stratified with red or orange priority had a higher incidence of ACS (16.5 % vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.006). The application of HEART score showed that most patients were in low risk category (56.3 %). The six-week incidence of MACE in each category was 2 %, 15.6 % and 76.9 % (p < 0.001). HEART score accurately predicted the short-term incidence of MACE in chest pain patients (c-statistic 0.880; 95 % CI, 0.807–0.950, p < 0.001).ConclusionsChest pain patients have very different levels of severity and the discriminatory power of Manchester triage system should be used in the assessment of this population. The HEART score seems to be an effective tool for risk stratification in the ED.

Patients in earlier phases of the cardiomyopathy, with a less altered ventricular geometry, seem to have a greater probability of becoming super-responders.

Upper endoscopy is the most common method for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract diseases. The aim of this study was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or -acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualization during upper endoscopy. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 297 patients scheduled for upper endoscopy who were premedicated 15 - 30 minutes before the procedure with: 100 mL of water (placebo, group A); water plus 100 mg simethicone (group B); water plus 100 mg simethicone plus 600 mg -acetylcysteine (group C). The primary outcome measure was the quality of mucosal visualization (score: excellent, adequate or inadequate). The addition of simethicone (group B) or simethicone plus -acetylcysteine to the water (group C) improved the visualization scores of endoscopies compared with water alone (group A). In particular, groups B and C produced a significantly higher percentage of endoscopies with excellent visualization for the esophagus (91.1 % and 86.7 %, respectively, vs. 71.4 % in group A; < 0.001) and stomach (76.2 % and 74.5 % vs. 38.8 % in group A; < 0.001). For the duodenum, the use of simethicone also showed an increase in the endoscopies with excellent visualization compared with water alone (85.1 % vs. 73.5 %; = 0.042). There were no significant differences in scores between groups B and C or between gastric scores in patients with previous subtotal gastrectomy (B and C vs. A): 60.0 % and 42.1 % vs. 28.6 % ( = 0.14). The rate of reported lesions was higher in group B but without statistical significance. Premedication with simethicone resulted in better mucosal visibility. Such premedication might improve diagnostic yield, and should be considered for standard practice. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357303).

Background: Adequate bowel preparation is one of the most important quality factors of colonoscopy. Our goal was to analyse the impact of personalised patient education on bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Methods: We performed a single-blinded, single-centre, prospective randomised trial, where patients were either allocated to a control group, where they received some predefined oral and written information on bowel preparation from the gastroenterologist, or to an intervention group, where patients received additional personalised instructions for bowel preparation and diet from a nurse. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation (Aronchick scale). Results: A total of 229 patients were randomised; 113 to the control group and 116 to the intervention group. In intention-to-treat analysis, bowel preparation was adequate in 62% (95% CI 53-70) of colonoscopies in the intervention group and in 35% (95% CI 26-44) of colonoscopies in the control group (p < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction was 27%, the relative risk was 1.77, and the number needed to treat was 4. Subgroup analysis showed a significant impact of personalised education in patients under 65 years (67 vs. 35%; p < 0.001), in males (60 vs. 33%; p = 0.003), in those with higher educational levels (68 vs. 37%; p = 0.002), in those living in urban areas (68 vs. 40%; p = 0.004), and in those with previous colonoscopy (68 vs. 40%; p = 0.001). Risk factors for inadequate preparation were: male gender (OR = 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-4.1), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.2-11.6), chronic constipation (OR = 3.7; 95% CI 1.7-8.2), absence of prior abdominal surgery (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.1), and being in the control group (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.4). Conclusions: Personalised patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation.

No abstract