Evaluation of Patients Referred from the Emergency Department to Cardiovascular Surgery: A University Hospital Model
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Research Article
VOLUME: 3 ISSUE: 2
P: 42 - 48
August 2025

Evaluation of Patients Referred from the Emergency Department to Cardiovascular Surgery: A University Hospital Model

Turk J Clin Cardiov Perfusion 2025;3(2):42-48
1. Bandırma Onyedi Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Göğüs Kalp ve Damar Cerrahisi Anabilim Dalı, Balıkesir, Türkiye
2. Bandırma Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Acil Tıp Bölümü, Balıkesir, Türkiye
3. Bandırma Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Kalp ve Damar Cerrahisi Kliniği, Perfüzyon Bölümü, Balıkesir, Türkiye
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 25.09.2025
Accepted Date: 05.12.2025
Online Date: 15.04.2026
Publish Date: 15.04.2026
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

Abstract

Objective

The emergency department is the first area where patients are evaluated. Admitted patients are referred to various departments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patients referred to the cardiovascular surgery (CVD) service from the emergency department of a regional medical faculty hospital.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in the emergency department of a regional medical faculty between June 2021 and January 2023. The records of patients referred from the emergency department to the CVD service were analysed. Demographic data, reasons for consultation for CVD, diagnoses, haematological and biochemical parameters, length of stay, and outcomes were evaluated. Patients were classified as having cardiac, arterial, venous, or other cardiovascular pathologies and were evaluated based on interventions performed and consultation results.

Results

The records of 305 patients who were admitted to the emergency department on the specified dates and referred to the CVD clinic for cardiovascular pathology were analysed via the institution’s automation system. It was determined that 75.7% (n = 231) of the consulted patients had CVD, (n = 74) had no CVD–related pathology. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 ± 17.6 years. 59.3% of the patients were male. Of the CVD–related consultations, 55.8% were outpatient. Among the evaluated patients, arterial pathologies (51.5%; n = 119), venous pathologies (19.9%; n = 46), and other pathologies (22.5%; n = 52) were observed. Emergency intervention was applied in 39% (n = 90) of consultations, and medical treatment in 48.9% (n = 113). 27.7% (n = 64) of the applicants were admitted to the hospital by a cardiovascular specialist.

Conclusion

The cooperation of the emergency department physician and CVD consultant physician is necessary for the rapid and effective evaluation of cardiovascular pathologies in the emergency department, and all stakeholders should be focused on patient benefit in this process.

Keywords:
Cardiovascular surgery, emergency department, consultation, cardiovascular pathologies

References

1
Chang AM, Rising KL. Cardiovascular admissions, readmissions, and transitions of care. Curr Emerg Hosp Med Rep. 2014;2(1):45-51.
2
Wilson M, Mazowita G, Ignaszewski A, Levin A, Barber C, Thompson D, et al. Family physician access to specialist advice by telephone: reduction in unnecessary specialist consultations and emergency department visits. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62(11):e668-e676.
3
Qiu S, Cai X, Sun Z, Li L, Zuegel M, Steinacker JM, et al. Heart rate recovery and risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(5):e005505.
4
Reichert J. Hospital admisions and consultations in a dialysis population. Nefrologia. 2007;27(1):53-61.
5
Kahraman F, Oskay T, Güler S, Gürbüzer T, Taylan G, Yılmaz AS, et al. Evaluation of cardiology consultation quality and quantity requested from emergency departments in Türkiye, Eskişehir Med J. 2022;3(3):283-291.
6
Drake A, Dreyer N, Hoffer M, Boniface K. Point-of-care ultrasound for the evaluation of acute arterial pathology in the emergency department: a case series. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2022;6(1):1-7.
7
Varghese JJ, Estes BA, Martinsen BJ, Igyarto Z, Mustapha J, Saab F, et al. Utilization rates of diagnostic and therapeutic vascular procedures among patients undergoing lower extremity amputations in a rural community hospital: a clinicopathological correlation. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2021;55(4):325-331.
8
Syed MH, Hussain MA, Khoshhal Z, Salata K, Altuwaijri B, Hughes B, et al. Thirty-day hospital readmission and emergency department visits after vascular surgery: a Canadian prospective cohort study. Can J Surg. 2018;61(4):257-263.
9
Wang TKM, Desai MY. Thoracic aortic aneurysm: optimal surveillance and treatment. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020;87(9):557-568.
10
Clough RE, Nienaber CA. Management of acute aortic syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12(2):103-114.
11
Cohn LH. Ischemic mitral regurgitation. In: Cohn LH, editor. Cardiac Surgery in the Adult. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2012. p. 997-1027. Available from: https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com
12
Lyaker MR, Tulman DB, Dimitrova GT, Pin RH, Papadimos TJ. Arterial embolism. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2013;3(1):77-87.
13
Timmermans SH, Wlazlo N, Mom EM, Stoffers HE. Thrombophlebitis of the leg: diagnosis and treatment by the general practitioner. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A1098.
14
Montrief T, Koyfman A, Long B. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery complications: a review for emergency clinicians. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(12):2289-2297.
15
Mostafa A, El-Haddad MA, Shenoy M, Tuliani T. Atrial fibrillation post cardiac bypass surgery. Avicenna J Med. 2012;2(3):65-70.
16
Akintoye E, Sellke F, Marchioli R, Tavazzi L, Mozaffarian D. Factors associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation and other adverse events after cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(1):242-251.