Emergency Department Cardiopulmonary Evaluation of Low-Risk Chest Pain Patients with Self-Reported Stress and Anxiety

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Central sensitization in burning mouth syndrome: a practical approach using questionnaires

OBJECTIVES

Some experts have suggested that burning mouth syndrome (BMS) should be included in the family of central sensitivity syndromes, a group of similar medical disorders linked by the central sensitization (CS) mechanism. Our objective is to assess the presence of CS in patients with BMS by performing a clinical examination and administering questionnaires to measure the generalized extent of pain, the presence of associated symptoms, and the number of other concurrent chronic pain conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a case-control study in 82 subjects (40 patients with BMS and 42 controls). Patients with BMS were diagnosed using The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition, beta version (ICHD-IIIβ) criteria. The Widespread Pain Index (WPI) and Symptom Severity (SS) Score questionnaires were used to determine the degree of central sensitivity. The number of other concurrent chronic pain conditions was determined with the Neblett inventory.

RESULTS

Data indicative of CS show a statistically significant association with BMS. Both SS Score and Widespread Pain Index scores higher in patients with BMS. Additionally, patients with BMS reported a significantly higher number of other central sensitivity syndromes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BMS could present a CS component as well as other chronic pain conditions. The use of questionnaires may be useful to determine the degree of central sensitivity in patients with BMS.

Patients' and health professionals' perceptions of the LoDED (limit of detection and ECG discharge) strategy for low-risk chest pain management: a qualitative study

Background

Rapid discharge strategies for patients with low-risk chest pain using high-sensitivity troponin assays have been extensively evaluated. The adherence to, and acceptability of such strategies, has largely been explored using quantitative data. The aims of this integrated qualitative study were to explore the acceptability of the limit of detection and ECG discharge strategy (LoDED) to patients and health professionals, and to refine a discharge information leaflet for patients with low-risk chest pain.

Methods

Patients with low-risk chest pain who consented to a semi-structured interview were purposively sampled for maximum variation from four of the participating National Health Service sites between October 2018 and May 2019. Two focus groups with ED health professionals at two of the participating sites were completed in April and June 2019.

Results

A discharge strategy based on a single undetectable hs-cTn test (LoDED) was acceptable to patients. They trusted the health professionals who were treating them and felt reassured by other tests, (ECG) alongside blood test(s), even when the clinical assessment did not provide a firm diagnosis. In contrast, health professionals had reservations about the LoDED strategy, including concern about identifying low-risk patients and a shortened patient observation period. Findings from 11 patient interviews and 2 staff focus groups (with 20 clinicians) centred around three overarching themes: acceptability of the LoDED strategy, perceptions of symptom severity and uncertainty, and patient discharge information.

Conclusion

Rapid discharge for low-risk chest pain is acceptable to patients, but clinicians reported some reticence in implementing the LoDED strategy. Further work is required to optimise discharge discussions and information provision for patients.

Stressing Out About the Heart: A Narrative Review of the Role of Psychological Stress in Acute Cardiovascular Events

OBJECTIVES

Survivors of acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stroke, may experience significant psychological distress during and following the acute event. Long-term adverse effects may follow, including the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), increased overall all-cause mortality, and recurrent cardiac events. The goal of this concepts paper is to describe and summarize the rates of adverse psychological outcomes, such as PTSD, following cardiovascular emergencies, to review how these psychological factors are associated with increased risk of future events and long-term health and to provide a theoretical framework for future work.

METHODS

A panel of two board-certified emergency physicians, one with a doctorate in experimental psychology, along with one PhD clinical psychologist with expertise in psychoneuroendocrinology were co-authors involved in the paper. Each author used various search strategies (e.g., PubMed, Psycinfo, Cochrane, and Google Scholar) for primary research and reviewed articles related to their section. The references were reviewed and evaluated for relevancy and included based on review by the lead authors RESULTS: A meta-analysis of 24 studies (N > 2,300) found the prevalence of ACS-induced PTSD at nearly 12%, while a meta-analysis of nine studies (N = 1,138) found that 25% of survivors of transient ischemic attack and stroke report PTSD symptoms. The presence of PTSD doubles 3-year risk of CVD/mortality risk in ACS survivors. Cardiac patients treated during periods of ED overcrowding, hallway care, and perceived poor clinician-patient communication appear at greater risk for subsequent PTSD.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological stress is often present in patients undergoing evaluation for acute CVD events. Understanding such associations provides a foundation to appreciate the potential contribution of psychological variables on acute and long-term cardiovascular recovery, while also stimulating future areas of research and discovery.

Controlled clinical trial of canine therapy versus usual care to reduce patient anxiety in the emergency department

Objective

Test if therapy dogs reduce anxiety in emergency department (ED) patients.

Methods

In this controlled clinical trial (NCT03471429), medically stable, adult patients were approached if the physician believed that the patient had “moderate or greater anxiety.” Patients were allocated on a 1:1 ratio to either 15 min exposure to a certified therapy dog and handler (dog), or usual care (control). Patient reported anxiety, pain and depression were assessed using a 0–10 scale (10 = worst). Primary outcome was change in anxiety from baseline (T0) to 30 min and 90 min after exposure to dog or control (T1 and T2 respectively); secondary outcomes were pain, depression and frequency of pain medication.

Results

Among 93 patients willing to participate in research, 7 had aversions to dogs, leaving 86 (92%) were willing to see a dog six others met exclusion criteria, leaving 40 patients allocated to each group (dog or control). Median and mean baseline anxiety, pain and depression scores were similar between groups. With dog exposure, median anxiety decreased significantly from T0 to T1: 6 (IQR 4–9.75) to T1: 2 (0–6) compared with 6 (4–8) to 6 (2.5–8) in controls (P<0.001, for T1, Mann-Whitney U and unpaired t-test). Dog exposure was associated with significantly lower anxiety at T2 and a significant overall treatment effect on two-way repeated measures ANOVA for anxiety, pain and depression. After exposure, 1/40 in the dog group needed pain medication, versus 7/40 in controls (P = 0.056, Fisher’s exact test).

Conclusions

Exposure to therapy dogs plus handlers significantly reduced anxiety in ED patients.

Telemental health training and delivery in primary care: A case report of interdisciplinary treatment

Telehealth can overcome access and availability barriers that often impede receiving needed mental health services. This case report describes an interdisciplinary approach to treatment for an individual with chronic physical health conditions and comorbid mental health concerns, which resulted in high utilization (and associated costs) of preventable emergency services. The report describes clinical case progression on anxiety symptoms and emergency service utilization while concurrently highlighting telehealth-specific practice implications, especially as they pertain to training settings.

Anxiety Associated With Increased Risk for Emergency Department Recidivism in Patients With Low-Risk Chest Pain

Anxiety contributes to the chest pain symptom complex in 30% to 40% of patients with low-risk chest pain seen in the emergency department (ED). The validated Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) has been used as an anxiety screening tool in this population. The objective was to determine the prevalence of abnormal HADS-A scores in a cohort of low-risk chest pain patients and test the association of HADS-A score with subsequent healthcare utilization and symptom recurrence. In a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study of adult ED subjects with low-risk chest pain, the HADS-A was used to stratify participants into 2 groups: low anxiety (score <8) and high anxiety (score ≥8). At 45-day follow-up, chest pain recurrence was assessed by patient report, whereas ED utilization was assessed through chart review. Of the 167 subjects enrolled, 78 (47%) were stratified to high anxiety. The relative risk for high anxiety being associated with at least one 30-day ED return visit was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.7) and this relative risk increased to 9.1 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 38.6) for 2 or more ED return visits. Occasional chest pain recurrence was reported by more subjects in the high anxiety group, 68% vs 47% (p = 0.029). In conclusion, 47% of low-risk chest pain cohort had abnormal levels of anxiety. These patients were more likely to have occasional recurrence of their chest pain and had an increased risk multiple ED return visits.

Anxiety about anxiety: a survey of emergency department provider beliefs and practices regarding anxiety-associated low risk chest pain

Background

Approximately 80% of patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with chest pain do not have any true cardiopulmonary emergency such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, psychological contributors such as anxiety are thought to be present in up to 58%, but often remain undiagnosed leading to chronic chest pain and ED recidivism.

Methods

To evaluate ED provider beliefs and their usual practices regarding the approach and disposition of patients with low risk chest pain associated with anxiety, we constructed a 22-item survey using a modified Delphi technique. The survey was administered to a convenience sample of ED providers attending the 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly in Las Vegas.

Results

Surveys were completed by 409 emergency medicine providers from 46 states and 7 countries with a wide range of years of experience and primary practice environment (academic versus community centers). Respondents estimated that 30% of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain thought to be low risk for ACS have anxiety or panic as the primary cause but they directly communicate this belief to only 42% of these patients and provide discharge instructions to 48%. Only 39% of respondents reported adequate hospital resources to ensure follow-up. Community-based providers reported more adequate follow-up for these patients than their academic center colleagues (46% vs. 34%; p = 0.015). Most providers (82%) indicated that they wanted to have referral resources available to a specific clinic for further outpatient evaluation.

Conclusion

Emergency Department providers believe approximately 30% of patients seeking emergency care for chest pain at low risk for ACS have anxiety as a primary problem, yet fewer than half discuss this concern or provide information to help the patient manage anxiety. This highlights an opportunity for patient centered communication.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-018-0161-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How Do We Balance the Long-Term Health of a Patient With the Short-Term Risk to the Physician?

BACKGROUND

There is a wide variation in practice patterns among emergency medicine physicians; many factors weigh into the medical decision-making process including the health of the patient as well as short-term risk to the physician.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our discussion is to illustrate specific scenarios where medical decisions are focused on the physician's short-term risk, then to propose an approach to shifting the balance to the patient's long-term health.

METHODS

Using recent data on the evaluation, disposition, and outcomes of patients with low-risk chest pain in the emergency department, we calculate the risk of outpatient evaluation compared to the common practice of admission or observation.

RESULTS

Patients with low-risk chest pain and negative initial evaluation in the emergency department with 2 normal cardiac biomarkers, normal vital signs, and non-ischemic, interpretable ECGs, have an extremely low-risk of a short term clinically relevant adverse cardiac event. There is a suggestion of a higher patient risk from admission, prompting consideration that continued evaluation of the chest pain as an outpatient may be safer than admission or observation.

CONCLUSION

A test/intervention should be done if the risk of a missed diagnosis or adverse outcome is greater that the risk of the test/intervention. Involving the patient in the decision-making process may help to shift the management balance from the physician's short-term concern of their own risk, to the patient's long-term health.