The fact is heart disease remains the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States (Amsterdam et al., 2014). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) estimate that 735,000 Americans suffer heart attacks each year. Although chest pain does not always signify a person is having a heart attack, the most reliable way to rule out this frightening possibility is a visit to the nearest emergency room for appropriate testing. Contrary to popular belief, the overwhelming majority of myocardial infarctions are diagnosed by carrying out cardiac troponin blood tests to detect myocardial (heart) cell death, not from a 12-lead electrocardiogram (Amsterdam et al., 2014). An electrocardiogram (ECG) identifies heart attacks
…show more content…
Although, point-of-care testing may improve cardiac troponin turnaround times, this testing method is costlier than a hospital’s central laboratory and fails to equal the reliability of a hospital’s central chemistry laboratory (Boelstler et al., 2014). Experts from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology describe challenges with the accuracy of bedside cardiac troponin testing devices and prefers that hospitals use their central laboratory to analyze cardiac troponin blood samples (Amsterdam et al., 2014). Therefore, conducting point-of-care testing is not a feasible solution for improving cardiac troponin turnaround times in XYZ’s emergency …show more content…
Many of you may know someone who ignored their heart attack for hours to days before seeking care. These individuals may have related their symptoms to indigestion; or perhaps waited to see their primary care physician, rather than go to an emergency room; or simply refused to seek medical care until they become gravely ill. These patients may no longer have the tell-tell symptoms, or 12-lead electrocardiogram changes that reflect a myocardial infarction, because the changes on an electrocardiogram resolve after a short time; after the damage is done! However, cardiac troponin testing will identify heart muscle cell death for up to two weeks, even after the person’s symptoms resolve (Amsterdam et al., 2014). Although these patients receive optimal care after deciding to seek medical attention, they often do poorly, all depending on the size and area of the ‘permanent’ heart muscle damage. Moreover, the focus of their medical treatment shifts from preventing or minimizing myocardial damage, to managing chronic symptoms due to the irreversible damage to their heart muscle. I am compelled to encourage you, or anyone in your family, to seek immediate medical care for symptoms suggestive of a myocardial infarction. These symptoms may including chest, back, or jaw
Although, point-of-care testing may improve cardiac troponin turnaround times, this testing method is costlier than a hospital’s central laboratory and fails to equal the reliability of a hospital’s central chemistry laboratory (Boelstler et al., 2014). Experts from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology describe challenges with the accuracy of bedside cardiac troponin testing devices and prefers that hospitals use their central laboratory to analyze cardiac troponin blood samples (Amsterdam et al., 2014). Therefore, conducting point-of-care testing is not a feasible solution for improving cardiac troponin turnaround times in XYZ’s emergency …show more content…
Many of you may know someone who ignored their heart attack for hours to days before seeking care. These individuals may have related their symptoms to indigestion; or perhaps waited to see their primary care physician, rather than go to an emergency room; or simply refused to seek medical care until they become gravely ill. These patients may no longer have the tell-tell symptoms, or 12-lead electrocardiogram changes that reflect a myocardial infarction, because the changes on an electrocardiogram resolve after a short time; after the damage is done! However, cardiac troponin testing will identify heart muscle cell death for up to two weeks, even after the person’s symptoms resolve (Amsterdam et al., 2014). Although these patients receive optimal care after deciding to seek medical attention, they often do poorly, all depending on the size and area of the ‘permanent’ heart muscle damage. Moreover, the focus of their medical treatment shifts from preventing or minimizing myocardial damage, to managing chronic symptoms due to the irreversible damage to their heart muscle. I am compelled to encourage you, or anyone in your family, to seek immediate medical care for symptoms suggestive of a myocardial infarction. These symptoms may including chest, back, or jaw