Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain: a clinical prediction score

Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome

PURPOSE

Chest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.

RESULTS

Of the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Clinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.

Performance of risk scores for coronary artery disease: a retrospective cohort study of patients with chest pain in urgent primary care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS), INTERCHEST, Gencer rule, Bruins Slot rule and compare these with unaided clinical judgement in patients with chest pain in urgent primary care.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Regional primary care facility responsible for out-of-hours primary care for a quarter-million people in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients aged ≥18 years who were evaluated for chest pain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Discriminatory ability (C-statistic), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). The reference standard involved a composite endpoint of the occurrence of death, acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation (=major adverse cardiac events; MACE) up to 6 weeks after initial contact.

RESULTS

A total of 664 patients were included, of whom 4.8% (n=32) had a MACE event. C-statistics for MHS, INTERCHEST, Gencer and Bruins Slot rule were: 0.77 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.92), 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for MHS ≥2 (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=67.1%, PPV=11.1%, NPV=98.6%), INTERCHEST ≥2 (sensitivity=87.5%, specificity=78.8%, PPV=17.3%, NPV=99.1%), Gencer ≥2 (sensitivity=84.4%, specificity=37.8%, PPV=6.4%, NPV=98.0%) and Bruins Slot≥2 (sensitivity=90.6%, specificity=40.8%, PPV=7.2%, NPV=98.9%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 out of 32 MACEs (sensitivity=81.3%, specificity=79.3%, PPV=16.6%, NPV=98.8%). Using INTERCHEST with a referral threshold of ≥2 points, 4 MACEs would have been missed and 162 patients (24.4%) referred. The other risk scores resulted in far higher referral rates.

CONCLUSION

While available risk scores have reasonable to good discriminatory properties, they do not outperform unaided clinical judgment for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care. Only the INTERCHEST score may slightly improve risk stratification.

Performance of the coronary calcium score in an outpatient chest pain clinic and strategies for risk stratification

Background

Coronary artery calcium score (CAC) is an objective marker of atherosclerosis. The primary aim is to assess CAC as a risk classifier in stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Hypothesis

CAC improves CAD risk prediction, compared to conventional risk scoring, even in the absence of cardiovascular risk factor inputs.

Methods

Outpatients presenting to a cardiology clinic (n = 3518) were divided into two cohorts: derivation (n = 2344 patients) and validation (n = 1174 patients). Adding logarithmic transformation of CAC, we built two logistic regression models: Model 1 with chest pain history and risk factors and Model 2 including chest pain history only without risk factors simulating patients with undiagnosed comorbidities. The CAD I Consortium Score (CCS) was the conventional reference risk score used. The primary outcome was the presence of coronary artery disease defined as any epicardial artery stenosis≥50% on CT coronary angiogram.

Results

Area under curve (AUC) of CCS in our validation cohort was 0.80. The AUC of Models 1 and 2 were significantly improved at 0.88 (95%CI 0.86–0.91) and 0.87 (95%CI 0.84–0.90), respectively. Integrated discriminant improvement was >15% for both models. At a pre‐specified cut‐off of ≤10% for excluding coronary artery disease, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.3% and 74.7% for Model 1, and 88.1% and 71.8% for Model 2.

Conclusion

CAC helps improve risk classification in patients with chest pain, even in the absence of prior risk factor screening.

Performance of a simplified HEART score and HEART-GP score for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care

Background

Chest pain is a common symptom in urgent primary care. The distinction between urgent and non-urgent causes can be challenging. A modified version of the HEART score, in which troponin is omitted (‘simplified HEART’) or replaced by the so-called ‘sense of alarm’ (HEART-GP), may aid in risk stratification.

Method

This study involved a retrospective, observational cohort of consecutive patients evaluated for chest pain at a large-scale, out-of-hours, regional primary care facility in the Netherlands, with 6‑week follow-up for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The outcome of interest is diagnostic accuracy, including positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results

We included 664 patients; MACEs occurred in 4.8% (n = 32). For  simplified HEART and HEART-GP, we found C‑statistics of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85–0.95), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for a simplified HEART score ≥2 (PPV 9%, NPV 99.7%), HEART-GP score ≥3 (PPV 11%, NPV 99.7%) and HEART-GP score ≥4 (PPV 16%, NPV 99.4%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 MACEs. A simplified HEART score ≥2 would have picked up 5 cases, at the expense of 332 referrals (50.0%, p < 0.001). A HEART-GP score of ≥3 and ≥4 would have detected 5 and 3 MACEs and led to 293 (44.1%, p < 0.001) and 186 (28.0%, p = 0.18) referrals, respectively.

Conclusion

HEART-score modifications including the physicians’ ‘sense of alarm’ may be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain in primary care in the absence of routine access to troponin assays. Further validation is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01529-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Quantitative CT Extent of Lung Damage in COVID-19 Pneumonia Is an Independent Risk Factor for Inpatient Mortality in a Population of Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study

Background: CT lung extent has emerged as a potential risk factor of COVID-19 pneumonia severity with mainly semiquantitative assessment, and outcome was not assessed in the specific oncology setting. The main goal was to evaluate the prognostic role of quantitative assessment of the extent of lung damage for early mortality of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in cancer patients. Methods: We prospectively included consecutive cancer patients with recent onset of COVID-19 pneumonia assessed by chest CT between March 15, 2020, and April 20, 2020, and followed until May 1, 2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory test data and imaging findings were recorded. Quantitative chest CT assessment of COVID-19 pneumonia was based on the density distribution of lung lesions using a freely available software recently released (Myrian XP-Lung). The association between extent of lung damage and overall survival was studied by univariate and multivariate Cox analysis. The Uno C-index was used to assess the discriminatory value of the quantitative CT extent of lung damage. Results: Seventy cancer patients with chest CT evidence of COVID-19 were included. After a median follow-up of 25 days, 17 patients (24%) had died. The median quantitative chest CT extent of COVID-19 was 20% (IQR = 14-35, range = 3-59) for non-survivors vs. 10% (IQR = 6-15, range = 2-55) for survivors (p = 0.002). The extent of COVID-19 pneumonia was correlated with inpatient management (p = 0.003) and oxygen therapy requirements (p < 0.001). Independent factors associated with death were performance status (PS) ≥2 (HR = 3.9, 95% CI = [1.1-13.8] p = 0.04) and extent of COVID-19 pneumonia ≥30% (HR = 12.0, 95% CI = [2.2-64.4] p = 0.004). No differences were found regarding the histology of cancer, cancer stage, metastases sites, or type of oncologic treatment between the survivor and non-survivor groups. The cross-validated Uno C-index of the model including PS and extent of COVID-19 pneumonia was 0.83, 95% CI = [0.73-0.93]. Conclusions: The quantitative chest CT extent of COVID-19 pneumonia was a strong independent prognostic factor of early inpatient mortality in a population of cancer patients.

Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review of diagnostic studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing.

REVIEW METHODS

Reviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%-91%), specificity (61%-81%) and positive (23%-35%) and negative (97%-98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%-34%, NPV: 95%-99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%-43%, NPV: 96%-98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

In general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.

Computerized Systems Supporting Clinical Decision in Medicine

Statistics is the science of collection, summarizing, presentation and interpretation of data. Moreover, it yields methods used in the verification of research hypotheses. The presence of a statistician in a research group remarkably improves both the quality of design and research and the optimization of financial resources. Moreover, the involvement of a statistician in a research team helps the physician to effectively utilize the time and energy spent on diagnosing, which is an important aspect in view of limited healthcare resources. Precise, properly designed and implemented Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems certainly lead to the improvement of healthcare and the quality of medical services, which increases patient satisfaction and reduces financial burdens on healthcare systems.

Characteristics of patients with acute myocardial infarction contacting primary healthcare before hospitalisation: a cross-sectional study

Background

The characteristics of patients with on-going myocardial infarction (MI) contacting the primary healthcare (PHC) centre before hospitalisation are not well known. Prompt diagnosis is crucial in patients with MI, but many patients delay seeking medical care. The aims of this study was to 1) describe background characteristics, symptoms, actions and delay times in patients contacting the PHC before hospitalisation when falling ill with an acute MI, 2) compare those patients with acute MI patients not contacting the PHC, and 3) explore factors associated with a PHC contact in acute MI patients.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional multicentre study, enrolling consecutive patients with MI within 24 hours of admission to hospital from Nov 2012 until Feb 2014.

Results

A total of 688 patients with MI, 519 men and 169 women, were included; the mean age was 66±11 years. One in five people contacted PHC instead of the recommended emergency medical services (EMS), and 94% of these patients experienced cardinal symptoms of an acute MI; i.e., chest pain, and/or radiating pain in the arms, and/or cold sweat. Median delay time from symptom-onset-to-decision-to-seek-care was 2:15 hours in PHC patients and 0:40 hours in non-PHC patients (p<0.01). The probability of utilising the PHC before hospitalisation was associated with fluctuating symptoms (OR 1.74), pain intensity (OR 0.90) symptoms during off-hours (OR 0.42), study hospital (OR 3.49 and 2.52, respectively, for two of the county hospitals) and a final STEMI diagnosis (OR 0.58).

Conclusions

Ambulance services are still underutilized in acute MI patients. A substantial part of the patients contacts their primary healthcare centre before they are diagnosed with MI, although experiencing cardinal symptoms such as chest pain. There is need for better knowledge in the population about symptoms of MI and adequate pathways to qualified care. Knowledge and awareness amongst primary healthcare professionals on the occurrence of MI patients is imperative.

Early health technology assessment of future clinical decision rule aided triage of patients presenting with acute chest pain in primary care

The objective of the paper is to estimate the number of patients presenting with chest pain suspected of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in primary care and to calculate possible cost effects of a future clinical decision rule (CDR) incorporating a point-of-care test (PoCT) as compared with current practice. The annual incidence of chest pain, referrals and ACS in primary care was estimated based on a literature review and on a Dutch and Belgian registration study. A health economic model was developed to calculate the potential impact of a future CDR on costs and effects (ie, correct referral decisions), in several scenarios with varying correct referral decisions. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the model outcome to changes in input parameters. Annually, over one million patient contacts in primary care in the Netherlands concern chest pain. Currently, referral of eventual ACS negative patients (false positives, FPs) is estimated to cost €1,448 per FP patient, with total annual cost exceeding 165 million Euros in the Netherlands. Based on 'international data', at least a 29% reduction in FPs is required for the addition of a PoCT as part of a CDR to become cost-saving, and an additional €16 per chest pain patient (ie, 16.4 million Euros annually in the Netherlands) is saved for every further 10% relative decrease in FPs. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcome was robust to changes in model inputs, with costs outcomes mainly driven by costs of FPs and costs of PoCT. If PoCT-aided triage of patients with chest pain in primary care could improve exclusion of ACS, this CDR could lead to a considerable reduction in annual healthcare costs as compared with current practice.

Chest pain for coronary heart disease in general practice: clinical judgement and a clinical decision rule

BACKGROUND

The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) is a simple, valid, and robust clinical decision rule assisting GPs in ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain.

AIM

To investigate whether using the rule adds to the GP's clinical judgement.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A comparative diagnostic accuracy study was conducted using data from 832 consecutive patients with chest pain in general practice.

METHOD

Three diagnostic strategies were defined using the MHS: diagnosis based solely on the MHS; using the MHS as a triage test; and GP's clinical judgement aided by the MHS. Their accuracy was compared with the GPs' unaided clinical judgement.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of the GPs' unaided clinical judgement was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.4 to 89.9) and 61.0% (95% CI = 56.7 to 65.2), respectively. In comparison, the sensitivity of the MHS was higher (difference 8.5%, 95% CI = -2.4 to 19.6) and the specificity was similar (difference -0.4%, 95% CI = -5.3 to 4.5); the sensitivity of the triage was similar (difference -1.5%, 95% CI = -9.8 to 7.0) and the specificity was higher (difference 11.6%, 95% CI = 7.8 to 15.4); and both the sensitivity and specificity of the aided clinical judgement were higher (difference 8.0%, 95% CI = -6.9 to 23.0 and 5.8%, 95% CI = -1.6 to 13.2, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Using the Marburg Heart Score for initial triage can improve the clinical diagnosis of CHD in general practice.

Pre-hospital delay in patients with first time myocardial infarction: an observational study in a northern Swedish population

Background

In myocardial infarction (MI), pre-hospital delay is associated with increased mortality and decreased possibility of revascularisation. We assessed pre-hospital delay in patients with first time MI in a northern Swedish population and identified determinants of a pre-hospital delay ≥ 2 h.

Methods

A total of 89 women (mean age 72.6 years) and 176 men (mean age 65.8 years) from a secondary prevention study were enrolled in an observational study after first time MI between November 2009 and March 2012. Total pre-hospital delay was defined as the time from the onset of symptoms suggestive of MI to admission to the hospital. Decision time was defined as the time from the onset of symptoms until the call to Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The time of symptom onset was assessed during the episode of care, and the time of call to EMS and admission to the hospital was based on recorded data. The first medical contact was determined from a mailed questionnaire. Determinants associated with pre-hospital delay ≥ 2 h were identified by multivariable logistic regression.

Results

The median total pre-hospital delay was 5.1 h (IQR 18.1), decision time 3.1 h (IQR 10.4), and transport time 1.2 h (IQR 1.0). The first medical contact was to primary care in 52.3 % of cases (22.3 % as a visit to a general practitioner and 30 % by telephone counselling), 37.3 % called the EMS, and 10.4 % self-referred to the hospital. Determinants of a pre-hospital delay ≥ 2 h were a visit to a general practitioner (OR 10.77, 95 % CI 2.39–48.59), call to primary care telephone counselling (OR 3.82, 95 % CI 1.68–8.68), chest pain as the predominant presenting symptom (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.08–0.77), and distance from the hospital (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.02–1.04). Among patients with primary care as the first medical contact, 67.0 % had a decision time ≥ 2 h, compared to 44.7 % of patients who called EMS or self-referred (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Pre-hospital delay in patients with first time MI is prolonged considerably, particularly when primary care is the first medical contact. Actions to shorten decision time and increase the use of EMS are still necessary.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0271-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Presentation of Coronary Artery Disease in a Chiropractic Clinic: A Report of 2 Cases

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this report is to describe 2 patients with coronary artery disease presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms to a chiropractic clinic.

CLINICAL FEATURES

A 48-year-old male new patient had thoracic spine pain aggravated by physical exertion. A 61-year-old man under routine care for low back pain experienced a secondary complaint of acute chest pain during a reevaluation.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME

In both cases, the patients were strongly encouraged to consult their medical physician and were subsequently diagnosed with coronary artery disease. Following their diagnoses, each patient underwent surgical angioplasty procedures with stenting.

CONCLUSION

Patients may present for chiropractic care with what appears to be musculoskeletal chest pain when the pain may be generating from coronary artery disease necessitating medical and possibly emergency care.

Clinical assessment of patients with chest pain; a systematic review of predictive tools

Background

The clinical assessment of patients with chest pain of recent onset remains difficult. This study presents a critical review of clinical predictive tools for the assessment of patients with chest pain.

Methods

Systematic review of observational studies and estimation of probabilities of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with chest pain. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting tools, with at least three variables from clinical history, physical examination or ECG, produced with multivariate analysis, to estimate probabilities of CAD in patients with chest pain of recent onset, published from inception of the database to the 31^st July 2015. The references of previous relevant reviews were hand searched. The methodological quality was assessed with standard criteria. Since the incidence of CAD has changed in the past few decades, the date of publication was acknowledged to be relevant in order to use the tool in clinical practice, and more recent papers were considered more relevant. Probabilities of CAD according to the studies of highest quality were estimated and the evidence provided was graded.

Results

Twelve papers were included out of the 19126 references initially identified. The methodological quality of all of them was high. The clinical characteristics of the chest pain, age, past medical history of cardiovascular disease, gender, and abnormalities in the ECG were the predictors of CAD most commonly reported across the studies. The most recent papers, with highest methodological quality, and most practical for use in clinical settings, reported prediction or exclusion of CAD with area under the curve 0.90 in Primary Care, 0.91 in Emergency department, and 0.79 in Cardiology. These papers provide evidence of high level (1B) and the recommendation to use their results in the management of patients with chest pain is strong (A).

Conclusions

The risk of CAD can be estimated on clinical grounds in patients with chest pain in different clinical settings with high accuracy. The estimation of probabilities of CAD presented in these studies could be used for a better management of patients with chest pain and also in the development of future predictive tools.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0196-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical value of chest pain presentation and prodromes on the assessment of cardiovascular disease: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The recognition of coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients who report chest pain remains difficult in primary care. This study investigates the association between chest pain (specified, unspecified or musculoskeletal) and prodromes (dyspepsia, fatigue or dyspnoea), with first-ever acute CAD, and increased longer term cardiovascular risk.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Anonymised clinical data recorded electronically by general practitioners from 140 primary care surgeries in London (UK) between April 2008 and April 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were extracted for all patients aged 30 years and over at the beginning of the study period, registered in the surgeries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical data included chest pain, dyspepsia, dyspnoea and fatigue, first-ever CAD and long-term cardiovascular risk (QRisk2). Regression models were used to analyse the association between chest pain together with prodromes and CAD and QRisk2≥20%.

RESULTS

354,052 patients were included in the study. 4842 patients had first-ever CAD of which 270 reported chest pain in the year before the acute event. 257,019 patients had QRisk2 estimations. Chest pain was associated with a higher risk of CAD. HRs: 21.12 (16.68 to 26.76), p<0.001; 7.51 (6.49 to 8.68), p<0.001; and 1.84 (1.14 to 3.00), p<0.001 for specified, unspecified and musculoskeletal chest pain. Dyspepsia, dyspnoea or fatigue was also associated with a higher risk of CAD. Chest pain of all subtypes, dyspepsia and dyspnoea were also associated with an increased 10-year cardiovascular risk of 20% or more.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients with chest pain, including those with atypical symptoms, require careful assessment for acute and longer term cardiovascular risk. Prodromes may have independent diagnostic value in the estimation of cardiovascular disease risk.

Duration analysis for coronary artery disease patients with chronic chest pain: an output from saudi arabia

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a persistent public health problem worldwide. Chest pain is one of the perceptible symptoms of the same disease. Literature has found acute chest pain as plausible risk factors for CAD. Nevertheless, none of the study has estimated duration from chronic chest pain to the diagnosis of CAD. The objective of the study was to estimate duration from chronic chest pain to CAD and to assess impact of risk factors on same duration.

METHODS

Data were obtained from community based study on 17,232 Saudi adults. History of patients about onset of chest pain and other risk factors were inquired. Descriptive measures were obtained by Kaplan-Meier curve. Effect of demographic and clinical factors was assessed by Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Out of 24% patients with chest pain, 21% diagnosed with CAD. The average duration was 5 years. About 12% of patients with chest pain diagnosed with CAD after one year. Advancing age, female gender, no exercise and reduced high density lipoprotein (HDL) were significantly hazardous predictors throughout duration from chest pain to diagnosis of CAD.

CONCLUSION

The duration from chest pain to CAD was 5 years. Age, gender, exercise and HDL can be variables of concern to deteriorate hazards of CAD for patients with chest pain.

Chest pain out-of-hours - an interview study of primary care physicians' diagnostic approach, tolerance of risk and attitudes to hospital admission

Background

Acute chest pain constitutes a considerable diagnostic challenge outside hospitals. This will often lead to uncertainty in choosing the right management, and the physicians’ approach may be influenced by their knowledge of diagnostic measures and their tolerance of risk. The aim of this study was to investigate primary care physicians’ diagnostic approach, tolerance of risk and attitudes to hospital admission in patients with acute chest pain out-of-hours in Norwegian primary care.

Methods

Data were registered prospectively from four Norwegian casualty clinics. Data from structured telephone interviews with 100 physicians shortly after a consultation with a patient presenting at the casualty clinic with “chest pain” were analysed. Tolerance of risk was measured by the Pearson Risk Scale and the Tolerance of Risk Scale, the latter developed for this study.

Results

“Patient history and symptoms” was considered the most important, and “negative ECG” and “effect of sublingual nitroglycerine” the least important aspects in the diagnostic approach. There were no significant differences in length of experience or gender when testing “risk avoiders” against the rest. Almost all physicians felt that their risk assessment out-of-hours was reasonably good, and felt reasonably safe, but only 50% agreed with the statement “I don’t worry about my decisions after I’ve made them”. Concerning chest pain patients only, 51% of the physicians were worried about complaints being made about them, 75% agreed that admitting someone to hospital put patients in danger of being “over-tested”, and 51% were more likely to admit the patient if the patient herself wanted to be admitted.

Conclusions

Physicians working out-of-hours showed considerable differences in their diagnostic approach, and not all physicians diagnose patients with chest pain according to current guidelines and evidence. Continuous medical education must focus on the diagnostic approach in patients with chest pain in primary care and empowerment of physicians through training and emphasis on risk assessment and “tolerance of risk”.

Diagnostic characteristics and prognoses of primary-care patients referred for clinical exercise testing: a prospective observational study

Background

Evaluation of angina symptoms in primary care often includes clinical exercise testing. We sought to identify clinical characteristics that predicted the outcome of exercise testing and to describe the occurrence of cardiovascular events during follow-up.

Methods

This study followed patients referred to exercise testing for suspected coronary disease by general practitioners in the County of Jämtland, Sweden (enrolment, 25 months from February 2010). Patient characteristics were registered by pre-test questionnaire. Exercise tests were performed with a bicycle ergometer, a 12-lead electrocardiogram, and validated scales for scoring angina symptoms. Exercise tests were classified as positive (ST-segment depression >1 mm and chest pain indicative of angina), non-conclusive (ST depression or chest pain), or negative. Odds ratios (ORs) for exercise-test outcome were calculated with a bivariate logistic model adjusted for age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and previous cardiovascular events. Cardiovascular events (unstable angina, myocardial infarctions, decisions on revascularization, cardiovascular death, and recurrent angina in primary care) were recorded within six months. A probability cut-off of 10% was used to detect cardiovascular events in relation to the predicted test outcome.

Results

We enrolled 865 patients (mean age 63.5 years, 50.6% men); 6.4% of patients had a positive test, 75.5% were negative, 16.4% were non-conclusive, and 1.7% were not assessable. Positive or non-conclusive test results were predicted by exertional chest pain (OR 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-3.59), a pathologic ST-T segment on resting electrocardiogram (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.44-3.63), angina according to the patient (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.13-2.55), and medication for dyslipidaemia (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.02-2.23). During follow-up, cardiovascular events occurred in 8% of all patients and 4% were referred to revascularization. Cardiovascular events occurred in 52.7%, 18.3%, and 2% of patients with positive, non-conclusive, or negative tests, respectively. The model predicted 67/69 patients with a cardiovascular event.

Conclusions

Clinical characteristics can be used to predict exercise test outcome. Primary care patients with a negative exercise test have a very low risk of cardiovascular events, within six months. A predictive model based on clinical characteristics can be used to refine the identification of low-risk patients.

Chest pain in primary care: is the localization of pain diagnostically helpful in the critical evaluation of patients?--A cross sectional study

Background

Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Traditional textbooks still assign pain localization a certain discriminative role in the differential diagnosis of chest pain. The aim of our study was to synthesize pain drawings from a large sample of chest pain patients and to examine whether pain localizations differ for different underlying etiologies.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study including 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain recruited in 74 primary care offices in Germany. Primary care providers (PCPs) marked pain localization and radiation of each patient on a pictogram. After 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient, deciding on the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. PCP drawings were entered in a specially designed computer program to produce merged pain charts for different etiologies. Dissimilarities between individual pain localizations and differences on the level of diagnostic groups were analyzed using the Hausdorff distance and the C-index.

Results

Pain location in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) did not differ from the combined group of all other patients, including patients with chest wall syndrome (CWS), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) or psychogenic chest pain. There was also no difference in chest pain location between male and female CHD patients.

Conclusions

Pain localization is not helpful in discriminating CHD from other common chest pain etiologies.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule

BACKGROUND

The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) aims to assist GPs in safely ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain, and to guide management decisions.

AIM

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS in an independent sample and to evaluate the generalisability to new patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard in general practice in Hesse, Germany.

METHOD

Fifty-six German GPs recruited 844 males and females aged ≥ 35 years, presenting between July 2009 and February 2010 with chest pain. Baseline data included the items of the MHS. Data on the subsequent course of chest pain, investigations, hospitalisations, and medication were collected over 6 months and were reviewed by an independent expert panel. CHD was the reference condition. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values.

RESULTS

The AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.88). For a cut-off value of 3, the MHS showed a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI = 81.1% to 94.0%), a specificity of 63.5% (95% CI = 60.0% to 66.9%), a positive predictive value of 23.3% (95% CI = 19.2% to 28.0%), and a negative predictive value of 97.9% (95% CI = 96.2% to 98.9%).

CONCLUSION

Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS, its generalisability, and ease of application, its use in clinical practice is recommended.

Coronary heart disease in primary care: accuracy of medical history and physical findings in patients with chest pain--a study protocol for a systematic review with individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Chest pain is a common complaint in primary care, with coronary heart disease (CHD) being the most concerning of many potential causes. Systematic reviews on the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms and signs summarize the evidence about which of them are most useful in making a diagnosis. Previous meta-analyses are dominated by studies of patients referred to specialists. Moreover, as the analysis is typically based on study-level data, the statistical analyses in these reviews are limited while meta-analyses based on individual patient data can provide additional information. Our patient-level meta-analysis has three unique aims. First, we strive to determine the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for myocardial ischemia in primary care. Second, we investigate associations between study- or patient-level characteristics and measures of diagnostic accuracy. Third, we aim to validate existing clinical prediction rules for diagnosing myocardial ischemia in primary care. This article describes the methods of our study and six prospective studies of primary care patients with chest pain. Later articles will describe the main results.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for diagnosing coronary heart disease in primary care. We will perform bivariate analyses to determine the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios of individual symptoms and signs and multivariate analyses to explore the diagnostic value of an optimal combination of all symptoms and signs based on all data of all studies. We will validate existing clinical prediction rules from each of the included studies by calculating measures of diagnostic accuracy separately by study.

DISCUSSION

Our study will face several methodological challenges. First, the number of studies will be limited. Second, the investigators of original studies defined some outcomes and predictors differently. Third, the studies did not collect the same standard clinical data set. Fourth, missing data, varying from partly missing to fully missing, will have to be dealt with.Despite these limitations, we aim to summarize the available evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs for diagnosing CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York): CRD42011001170.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care

Background

Chest wall syndrome (CWS), the main cause of chest pain in primary care practice, is most often an exclusion diagnosis. We developed and evaluated a clinical prediction rule for CWS.

Methods

Data from a multicenter clinical cohort of consecutive primary care patients with chest pain were used (59 general practitioners, 672 patients). A final diagnosis was determined after 12 months of follow-up. We used the literature and bivariate analyses to identify candidate predictors, and multivariate logistic regression was used to develop a clinical prediction rule for CWS. We used data from a German cohort (n = 1212) for external validation.

Results

From bivariate analyses, we identified six variables characterizing CWS: thoracic pain (neither retrosternal nor oppressive), stabbing, well localized pain, no history of coronary heart disease, absence of general practitioner’s concern, and pain reproducible by palpation. This last variable accounted for 2 points in the clinical prediction rule, the others for 1 point each; the total score ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83) in the derivation cohort (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 45%; cut-off set at 6 points). Among all patients presenting CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) had a pain reproducible by palpation and 45% (n = 127) were correctly diagnosed. For a subset (n = 43) of these correctly classified CWS patients, 65 additional investigations (30 electrocardiograms, 16 thoracic radiographies, 10 laboratory tests, eight specialist referrals, one thoracic computed tomography) had been performed to achieve diagnosis. False positives (n = 41) included three patients with stable angina (1.8% of all positives). External validation revealed the ROC curve to be 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.79) with a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 93%.

Conclusions

This CWS score offers a useful complement to the usual CWS exclusion diagnosing process. Indeed, for the 127 patients presenting CWS and correctly classified by our clinical prediction rule, 65 additional tests and exams could have been avoided. However, the reproduction of chest pain by palpation, the most important characteristic to diagnose CWS, is not pathognomonic.

An exercise programme for community-dwelling, mobility-restricted and chronically ill older adults with structured support by the general practitioner's practice (HOMEfit). From feasibility to evaluation

Programmes containing health-enhancing physical exercise should be evaluated using standards that are just as rigorous as those required for drug development. In contrast to new medicines, exercise programmes are highly complex. This has to be taken into account when designing the research plan. In order to illustrate the development process of a "complex intervention", we use the example of an exercise programme for community-dwelling, mobility-restricted and chronically ill older adults. Based on a framework for evaluation of complex interventions (Medical Research Council [MRC], UK), a research plan was set up containing the phases: development, feasibility, evaluation, implementation. The development phase resulted in the design of a home-based exercise programme in which the target group is approached and supported via their general practitioner and an exercise therapist. A feasibility study was performed. Three quantitative criteria for feasibility (adoption, safety, continuing participation) were statistically confirmed which permitted the decision to proceed with the research plan. So far, the MRC framework has proved to be valuable for the development of the new programme.

Electronic risk alerts to improve primary care management of chest pain: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The primary care evaluation of chest pain represents a significant diagnostic challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if electronic alerts to physicians can improve the quality and safety of chest pain evaluations.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2008 and January 2010 among 292 primary care clinicians caring for 7,083 adult patients with chest pain and no history of cardiovascular disease.

INTERVENTION

Clinicians received alerts within the electronic health record during office visits for chest pain. One alert recommended performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin for high risk patients (Framingham Risk Score (FRS) ≥ 10%), and a second alert recommended against performance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients (FRS < 10%).

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcomes included performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin therapy for high risk patients; and avoidance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients.

KEY RESULTS

The majority (81%) of patients with chest pain were classified as low risk. High risk patients were more likely than low risk patients to be evaluated in the emergency department (11% versus 5%, p < 0.01) and to be hospitalized (7% versus 3%, p < 0.01). Acute myocardial infarction occurred among 26 (0.4%) patients, more commonly among high risk compared to low risk patients (1.1% versus 0.2%, p < 0.01). Among high risk patients, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups in rates of performing electrocardiograms (51% versus 48%, p = 0.33) or administering aspirin (20% versus 18%, p = 0.43). Among low risk patients, there was no difference between intervention and control groups in rates of cardiac stress testing (10% versus 9%, p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care management of chest pain is suboptimal for both high and low risk patients. Electronic alerts do not increase risk-appropriate care for these patients.

The diagnosis of coronary heart disease in a low-prevalence setting: follow-up data from patients whose CHD was misdiagnosed by their family doctors

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD) is a challenge for primary care physicians (PCPs). We studied the further course of 57 patients who presented to their PCPs with chest pain and were initially misdiagnosed as not having CHD as the cause of chest pain.

METHODS

The 57 misdiagnosed patients were among 1,249 consecutive patients aged 35 and above who presented with chest pain to 74 different PCPs (35% of the 209 PCPs initially invited to participate in the study). For each patient, the PCPs recorded the initial history and physical findings and the course over the ensuing six months. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed all of the data and retrospectively determined each patient's most likely cause of chest pain at the time of inclusion in the study.

RESULTS

For 405 patients (32.4%), the PCPs rated the probability that CHD was the cause of chest pain at 0 to 5%. The reference panel retrospectively diagnosed CHD as the cause of chest pain in 180 patients. The PCPs correctly diagnosed CHD as the cause of chest pain in 123 (68.3%) of these patients and failed to diagnose CHD as the cause of chest pain in 57 of them (31.7%). 26 (45.6%) of the 57 misdiagnosed patients had a history of CHD. Even when the diagnosis of CHD as the cause of chest pain was missed, the PCPs often ordered an ECG (42 of 57 patients, or 73.7%) or referred the patient to a cardiologist or internist (20 of 57 patients, or 35.1%).

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians diagnose CHD with moderate sensitivity. Even when they initially fail to make the diagnosis, they often order further tests and consultations that ultimately lead to a correct diagnosis of CHD.

Diagnosing acute coronary syndrome in primary care: comparison of the physicians' risk estimation and a clinical decision rule

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in a primary care setting poses a diagnostic dilemma for physicians.

OBJECTIVE

We directly compared the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical decision rule (CDR) based on history taking and physical examination in suspected ACS with the risk estimates of the attending GP.

METHODS

In a prospective multicenter study, patients suspected of ACS were included by the GP. GPs were asked to estimate the probability (0%-100%) of the presence of ACS. GPs collected patient data, but they were not aware of the CDR and did not score the patient accordingly.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were included (52% female, mean age 66 years, 22% ACS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.82] for the GP risk estimate and 0.66 (95% CI 0.58-0.73) for the CDR. There was an agreement between the risk estimation of the GP and a CDR in 51% and the prevalence of ACS in predefined low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups was similar for the GP and CDR estimates. In the low-risk group, according to the GP, four patients (8.2%) suffered an ACS. These four patients were all identified by the decision rule as high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The GP classified patients as ACS or no ACS more adequately than the CDR, judged by the AUC. However, the use of a CDR in patients that are considered at low risk for ACS by the GP could reduce the amount of missed myocardial infarctions.

Accuracy of general practitioners' assessment of chest pain patients for coronary heart disease in primary care: cross-sectional study with follow-up

AIM

To estimate how accurately general practitioners' (GP) assessed the probability of coronary heart disease in patients presenting with chest pain and analyze the patient management decisions taken as a result.

METHODS

During 2005 and 2006, the cross-sectional diagnostic study with a delayed-type reference standard included 74 GPs in the German state of Hesse, who enrolled 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. GPs recorded symptoms and findings for each patient on a report form. Patients and GPs were contacted 6 weeks and 6 months after the patients' visit to the GP. Data on chest complaints, investigations, hospitalization, and medication were reviewed by an independent panel, with coronary heart disease being the reference condition. Diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of the GPs' diagnoses were calculated.

RESULTS

GPs diagnosed coronary heart disease with the sensitivity of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-75) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 87-91), and acute coronary syndrome with the sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36-64) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). They assumed coronary heart disease in 245 patients, 41 (17%) of whom were referred to the hospital, 77 (31%) to a cardiologist, and 162 (66%) to electrocardiogram testing.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' evaluation of chest pain patients, based on symptoms and signs alone, was not sufficiently accurate for diagnosing or excluding coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndrome.

Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule

BACKGROUND

Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort).

RESULTS

The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3-5 points; negative result <or= 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%-94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%-83.9%).

INTERPRETATION

The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.

Accuracy of general practitioners' assessment of chest pain patients for coronary heart disease in primary care: cross-sectional study with follow-up

AIM

To estimate how accurately general practitioners' (GP) assessed the probability of coronary heart disease in patients presenting with chest pain and analyze the patient management decisions taken as a result.

METHODS

During 2005 and 2006, the cross-sectional diagnostic study with a delayed-type reference standard included 74 GPs in the German state of Hesse, who enrolled 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. GPs recorded symptoms and findings for each patient on a report form. Patients and GPs were contacted 6 weeks and 6 months after the patients' visit to the GP. Data on chest complaints, investigations, hospitalization, and medication were reviewed by an independent panel, with coronary heart disease being the reference condition. Diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of the GPs' diagnoses were calculated.

RESULTS

GPs diagnosed coronary heart disease with the sensitivity of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-75) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 87-91), and acute coronary syndrome with the sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36-64) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). They assumed coronary heart disease in 245 patients, 41 (17%) of whom were referred to the hospital, 77 (31%) to a cardiologist, and 162 (66%) to electrocardiogram testing.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' evaluation of chest pain patients, based on symptoms and signs alone, was not sufficiently accurate for diagnosing or excluding coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndrome.

Predictive ability of an early diagnostic guess in patients presenting with chest pain; a longitudinal descriptive study

Background

The intuitive early diagnostic guess could play an important role in reaching a final diagnosis. However, no study to date has attempted to quantify the importance of general practitioners' (GPs) ability to correctly appraise the origin of chest pain within the first minutes of an encounter.

Methods

The validation study was nested in a multicentre cohort study with a one year follow-up and included 626 successive patients who presented with chest pain and were attended by 58 GPs in Western Switzerland. The early diagnostic guess was assessed prior to a patient's history being taken by a GP and was then compared to a diagnosis of chest pain observed over the next year.

Results

Using summary measures clustered at the GP's level, the early diagnostic guess was confirmed by further investigation in 51.0% (CI 95%; 49.4% to 52.5%) of patients presenting with chest pain. The early diagnostic guess was more accurate in patients with a life threatening illness (65.4%; CI 95% 64.5% to 66.3%) and in patients who did not feel anxious (62.9%; CI 95% 62.5% to 63.3%). The predictive abilities of an early diagnostic guess were consistent among GPs.

Conclusions

The GPs early diagnostic guess was correct in one out of two patients presenting with chest pain. The probability of a correct guess was higher in patients with a life-threatening illness and in patients not feeling anxious about their pain.