For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
Inviting an author to review:
Representation of Non-Spatial and Spatial Information in the Lateral Entorhinal Cortex
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
10
views
32
references
 Top references
cited by
16
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      31
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Criteria of the German Society of Cardiology for the establishment of chest pain units: update 2014

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since 2008, the German Cardiac Society (DGK) has been establishing a network of certified chest pain units (CPUs). The goal of CPUs was and is to carry out differential diagnostics of acute or newly occurring chest pain of undetermined origin in a rapid and goal-oriented manner and to take immediate therapeutic measures. The basis for the previous certification process was criteria that have been established and published by the task force on CPUs. These criteria regulate the spatial and technical requirements and determine diagnostic and therapeutic strategies in patients with chest pain. Furthermore, the requirements for the organization of CPUs and the training requirements for the staff of a CPU are defined. The certification process is carried out by the DGK; currently, 225 CPUs are certified and 139 CPUs have been recertified after running for a period of 3 years. The certification criteria have now been revised and updated according to new guidelines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine.

          Loren Hiratzka, George L. Bakris, Joshua A Beckman … (2010)
          Article 0 comments Cited 477 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes.

            Shamir R Mehta, Christopher Granger, William E Boden … (2009)
            Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity). Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Article 0 comments Cited 165 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection.

              G. Taylor, R Erbel, … (2001)
              Article 0 comments Cited 136 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Thomas Münzel: 06131 17 7250 , tmuenzel@uni-mainz.de
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Clin Res Cardiol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Clin Res Cardiol
                Title: Clinical Research in Cardiology
                Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                ISSN (Print): 1861-0684
                ISSN (Electronic): 1861-0692
                Publication date (Electronic): 7 July 2015
                Publication date PMC-release: 7 July 2015
                Publication date (Print): 2015
                Volume: 104
                Issue: 11
                Pages: 918-928
                Affiliations
                [ ]Katholisches Klinikum Koblenz Montabaur, Koblenz, Germany
                [ ]II. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Angiologie und internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany
                [ ]Klinik für KardiologieAngiologie und Pneumonologie, Heidelberg, Germany
                [ ]Department für Kardiologie, Innere Medizin und Intensivmedizin, Vivantes-Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Klinikum III für Innere Medizin Uniklinik Köln, Cologne, Germany
                [ ]Kerkhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
                [ ]Klinik für Kardiologie und Angiologie, Herzzentrum Bremen, Bremen, Germany
                [ ]Kardiologie und allgemeine Innere Medizin, Solingen, Germany
                [ ]Cardiozentrum, Düsseldorf, Germany
                [ ]Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany
                Article
                Publisher ID: 888
                DOI: 10.1007/s00392-015-0888-2
                PMC ID: 4623090
                PubMed ID: 26150114
                SO-VID: bb57d77a-3a10-4472-b689-765234c5f636
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2015
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Date received : 8 December 2014
                Date accepted : 23 June 2015
                Categories
                Subject: Review
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Cardiovascular Medicine
                Keywords: chest pain,certification,requirements network guidelines
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Cardiovascular Medicine
                Keywords: chest pain, certification, requirements network guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content31

                See all similar

                Cited by16

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,183

                See all reference authors