The incremental value of stress testing in patients with acute chest pain beyond serial cardiac troponin testing

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.

Graded Coronary Risk Stratification for Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain: A Controlled Cohort Study

Background Resource utilization among emergency department (ED) patients with possible coronary chest pain is highly variable. Methods and Results Controlled cohort study amongst 21 EDs of an integrated healthcare system examining the implementation of a graded coronary risk stratification algorithm (RISTRA-ACS [risk stratification for acute coronary syndrome]). Thirteen EDs had access to RISTRA-ACS within the electronic health record (RISTRA sites) beginning in month 24 of a 48-month study period (January 2016 to December 2019); the remaining 8 EDs served as contemporaneous controls. Study participants had a chief complaint of chest pain and serum troponin measurement in the ED. The primary outcome was index visit resource utilization (observation unit or hospital admission, or 7-day objective cardiac testing). Secondary outcomes were 30-day objective cardiac testing, 60-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 60-day MACE-CR (MACE excluding coronary revascularization). Difference-in-differences analyses controlled for secular trends with stratification by estimated risk and adjustment for risk factors, ED physician and facility. A total of 154 914 encounters were included. Relative to control sites, 30-day objective cardiac testing decreased at RISTRA sites among patients with low (≤2%) estimated 60-day MACE risk (-2.5%, 95% CI -3.7 to -1.2%, P<0.001) and increased among patients with non-low (>2%) estimated risk (+2.8%, 95% CI +0.6 to +4.9%, P=0.014), without significant overall change (-1.0%, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.1%, P=0.079). There were no statistically significant differences in index visit resource utilization, 60-day MACE or 60-day MACE-CR. Conclusions Implementation of RISTRA-ACS was associated with better allocation of 30-day objective cardiac testing and no change in index visit resource utilization or 60-day MACE. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

Prospective Validation and Comparative Analysis of Coronary Risk Stratification Strategies Among Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain

Background

Coronary risk stratification is recommended for emergency department patients with chest pain. Many protocols are designed as “rule‐out” binary classification strategies, while others use graded‐risk stratification. The comparative performance of competing approaches at varying levels of risk tolerance has not been widely reported.

Methods and Results

This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients with chest pain presenting between January 2018 and December 2019 to 13 medical center emergency departments within an integrated healthcare delivery system. Using an electronic clinical decision support interface, we externally validated and assessed the net benefit (at varying risk thresholds) of several coronary risk scores (History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin [HEART] score, HEART pathway, Emergency Department Assessment of Chest Pain Score Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol), troponin‐only strategies (fourth‐generation assay), unstructured physician gestalt, and a novel risk algorithm (RISTRA‐ACS). The primary outcome was 60‐day major adverse cardiac event defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, coronary revascularization, or all‐cause mortality. There were 13 192 patient encounters included with a 60‐day major adverse cardiac event incidence of 3.7%. RISTRA‐ACS and HEART pathway had the lowest negative likelihood ratios (0.06, 95% CI, 0.03–0.10 and 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04–0.11, respectively) and the greatest net benefit across a range of low‐risk thresholds. RISTRA‐ACS demonstrated the highest discrimination for 60‐day major adverse cardiac event (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.92, 95% CI, 0.91–0.94, P<0.0001).

Conclusions

RISTRA‐ACS and HEART pathway were the optimal rule‐out approaches, while RISTRA‐ACS was the best‐performing graded‐risk approach. RISTRA‐ACS offers promise as a versatile single approach to emergency department coronary risk stratification.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03286179.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chest Pain-Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits and inpatient evaluation, with particular concern for acute coronary syndrome as an etiology, since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Although history-based, electrocardiographic, and laboratory evaluations have shown promise in identifying coronary artery disease, early accurate diagnosis is paramount and there is an important role for imaging examinations to determine the presence and extent of anatomic coronary abnormality and ischemic physiology, to guide management with regard to optimal medical therapy or revascularization, and ultimately to thereby improve patient outcomes. A summary of the various methods for initial imaging evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome is outlined in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Rapid rule out for suspected myocardial infarction: is the algorithm appropriate for all?

Aims

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with cardiac chest pain and high-sensitive troponin I (HsTnI) less than 5 ng/L have very good prognosis and low risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. The 2015 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) suggests that patients with normal high-sensitive troponin, which are free of chest pain and have a global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) score less than 140 are eligible for discharge from the hospital for outpatient workup. Our hypothesis suggests that not all patients with GRACE score under 140 should be discharged for ambulatory tests even with undetectable HsTnI as recommended in the guidelines.

Methods and results

Population-based retrospective cohort study in a large tertiary care centre. The study population included all patients discharged from the hospital between 1 February 2016 and 28 February 2019 following rule out of MI. During the study period, a total of 13 800 patients were discharged from the hospital after rule out of MI. Among them, 9236 (67%) had HsTnI below 5 ng/L. A total of 7705 patients (83%) met the criteria for low (n = 7162) or moderate (n = 543) GRACE risk score. Moderate-risk patients had significantly more adverse events than low-risk patients (4.6% vs. 2.1%, P &lt; 0.001). They are in higher risk of death (0.5% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.042), revascularization (3.9% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.0047), and readmission due to ACS (1.1% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.031).

Conclusion

Patients presenting to the ED with chest pain and HsTnI less than 5 ng/L and GRACE score under 140 have 2–4% adverse event in 60 days. The differences between the groups suggest using rapid rule out algorithms for only low-risk patients with GRACE score under 73.

Performance of Coronary Risk Scores Among Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Both the modified History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) score and the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at low risk (<1%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to assess the comparative accuracy of the EDACS (original and simplified) and modified HEART risk scores when using cardiac troponin I (cTnI) cutoffs below the 99th percentile, and obtain precise MACE risk estimates.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective study of adult emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for possible ACS in an integrated health care system between 2013 and 2015. Negative predictive values for MACE (composite of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and all-cause mortality) were determined at 60 days. Reclassification analyses were used to assess the comparative accuracy of risk scores and lower cTnI cutoffs.

RESULTS

A total of 118,822 patients with possible ACS were included. The 3 risk scores' accuracies were optimized using the lower limit of cTnI quantitation (<0.02 ng/ml) to define low risk for 60-day MACE, with reclassification yields ranging between 3.4% and 3.9%, while maintaining similar negative predictive values (range 99.49% to 99.55%; p = 0.27). The original EDACS identified the largest proportion of patients as low risk (60.6%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among ED patients with possible ACS, the modified HEART score, original EDACS, and simplified EDACS all predicted a low risk of 60-day MACE with improved accuracy using a cTnI cutoff below the 99th percentile. The original EDACS identified the most low-risk patients, and thus may be the preferred risk score.

Incidence and predictors of acute coronary syndrome within a year following a negative stress test-a false sense of security: is routine screening any useful?

One of the major issues in management of the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is classification of patients with atypical presentation who have low risk of having a coronary episode at presentation. There have been multiple studies on the stratification of high risk patients and medical management of such cases, however, there is a sub-class of patients who do not fit any category. In this paper, we have looked at the current literature on stratification of patients based on the study tools available and the risk of having a coronary episode during the following year. In our overview, we have found that the current methods in place namely, cardiac stress test and stress echocardiogram have a good prognostic factor in terms of mortality in the next one year and can safely stratify the patients at low risk when correlated with clinical presentation and laboratory studies. However, such data are limited for computerized tomography or magnetic resonant imaging and their application might be limited due to accessibility and cost of studies. Current guidelines for classification of high risk patient do an excellent job and we believe that proper application of stress tests together with other imaging modalities together with laboratory, clinical judgment, and proper use of medical management can help with safe discharge of patients from the emergency department (ED) and reduction of burden from healthcare.

Highly Sensitive Detection of Minimal Cardiac Ischemia using Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Activated Platelets

A reliable method for the diagnosis of minimal cardiac ischemia would meet a strong demand for the sensitive diagnosis of coronary artery disease in cardiac stress testing and risk stratification in patients with chest pain but unremarkable ECGs and biomarkers. We hypothesized that platelets accumulate early on in ischemic myocardium and a newly developed technology of non-invasive molecular PET imaging of activated platelets can thus detect minimal degrees of myocardial ischemia. To induce different degrees of minimal cardiac ischemia, the left anterior descending artery (LAD) was ligated for 10, 20 or 60 min. Mice were injected with a newly generated scFv_{anti-GPIIb/IIIa}-⁶⁴CuMeCOSar radiotracer, composed of a single-chain antibody that only binds to activated integrin GPIIb/IIIa (α_IIbβ_III) and thus to activated platelets, and a sarcophagine cage MeCOSar complexing the long half-life PET tracer copper-64. A single PET/CT scan was performed. Evans Blue/TTC staining to detect necrosis as well as classical serological biomarkers like Troponin I and heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP) were negative, whereas PET imaging of activated platelets was able to detect small degrees of ischemia. Taken together, molecular PET imaging of activated platelets represents a unique and highly sensitive method to detect minimal cardiac ischemia.