Tips and tools to help refine your approach to chest pain

,; ,; ,

doi:doi: 10.12788/jfp.0301

Applied Evidence

Tips and tools to help refine your approach to chest pain

J Fam Pract. 2021 November;70(9):420-430 | doi: 10.12788/jfp.0301

PDF Download

References

1. Chang AM, Fischman DL, Hollander JE. Evaluation of chest pain and acute coronary syndromes. Cardiol Clin. 2018;36:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ccl.2017.08.001

2. Rui P, Okeyode T. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2016 national summary tables. Accessed February 16, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2016_namcs_web_tables.pdf

3. Hsia RY, Hale Z, Tabas JA. A national study of the prevalence of life-threatening diagnoses in patients with chest pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1029-1032. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2498

4. Ebell MH. Evaluation of chest pain in primary care patients. Am Fam Physician. 2011;83:603-605.

5. Hollander JE, Than M, Mueller C. State-of-the-art evaluation of emergency department patients presenting with potential acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2016;134:547-564. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021886

6. Fanaroff AC, Rymer JA, Goldstein SA, et al. Does this patient with chest pain have acute coronary syndrome? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314:1955-1965. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12735

7. Kolminsky J, Choxi R, Mahmoud AR, et al. Familial hypercholesterolemia: cardiovascular risk stratification and clinical management. American College of Cardiology. June 1, 2020. Accessed September 28, 2021. www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2020/06/01/13/54/familial-hypercholesterolemia

8. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41:543-603. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405

9. McConaghy JR, Oza RS. Outpatient diagnosis of acute chest pain in adults. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:177-182.

10. Panju AA, Hemmelgarn BR, Guyatt GH, et al. The rational clinical examination. Is this patient having a myocardial infarction? JAMA. 1998;280:1256-1263.

11. Keller T, Zeller T, Peetz D, et al. Sensitive troponin I assay in early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:868-877. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0903515

12. Reichlin T, Hochholzer W, Bassetti S, et al. Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sensitive cardiac troponin assays. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:858-867. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900428

13. Tada M, Azuma H, Yamada N, et al. A comprehensive validation of very early rule-out strategies for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in emergency departments: protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026985. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026985

14. Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1211-1218. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3698

15. Shah AS, Anand A, Sandoval Y, et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I at presentation in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a cohort study. Lancet. 2015;386:2481-2488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00391-8

16. Chapman AR, Lee KK, McAllister DA, et al. Association of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentration with cardiac outcomes in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2017;318:1913-1924. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.17488

17. Vasile VC, Jaffe AS. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin in the evaluation of possible AMI. American College of Cardiology. July 16, 2018. Accessed September 28, 2021. www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2018/07/16/09/17/high-sensitivity-cardiac-troponin-in-the-evaluation-of-possible-am

18. Carlton EW, Khattab A, Greaves K. Identifying patients suitable for discharge after a single-presentation high-sensitivity troponin result: a comparison of five established risk scores and two high-sensitivity assays. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66:635-645.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.07.006

19. Qaseem A, Fihn SD, Williams S, et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Diagnosis of stable ischemic heart disease: summary of a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American Association for Thoracic Surgery/Preventative Cardiovascular nurses Association/Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:729-734. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-10-201211200-00010

20. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;130:2354-2394. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000133

21. Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, et al. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:701-711. doi: 10.7326/M14-1772

22. Bösner S, Haasenritter J, Becker A, et al. Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule. CMAJ. 2010;182:1295-1300. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.100212

23. Six AJ, Backus BE, Kelder JC. Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the HEART score. Neth Heart J. 2008;16:191-196. doi: 10.1007/BF03086144

24. Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1350-1358. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197906143002402

25. Haasenritter J, Bösner S, Vaucher P, et al. Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62:e415-e21. doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X649106

26. Laureano-Phillips J, Robinson RD, Aryal S, et al. HEART score risk stratification of low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74:187-203. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.12.010

27. Fernando SM, Tran A, Cheng W, et al. Prognostic accuracy of the HEART score for prediction of major adverse cardiac events in patients presenting with chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26:140-151. doi: 10.1111/acem.13649

28. Sakamoto JT, Liu N, Koh ZX, et al. Comparing HEART, TIMI, and GRACE scores for prediction of 30-day major adverse cardiac events in high acuity chest pain patients in the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2016;221:759-764. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.07.147

29. Harskamp RE, Laeven SC, Himmelreich JCL, et al. Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027081. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027081

30. Aerts M, Minalu G, Bösner S, et al. Internal Working Group on Chest Pain in Primary Care (INTERCHEST). Pooled individual patient data from five countries were used to derive a clinical prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care. J. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:120-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.011

31. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients in the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:2153-2158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.01.255

32. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, et al. Chest pain in the emergency room: a multicenter validation of the HEART Score. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2010;9:164-169. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e3181ec36d8

33. Poldervaart JM, Langedijk M, Backus BE, et al. Comparison of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI score to predict major adverse cardiac events in chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2017;227:656-661. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.10.080

34. Reaney PDW, Elliott HI, Noman A, et al. Risk stratifying chest pain patients in the emergency department using HEART, GRACE and TIMI scores, with a single contemporary troponin result, to predict major adverse cardiac events. Emerg Med J. 2018;35:420-427. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207172

35. Bittencourt MS, Hulten E, Polonsky TS, et al. European Society of Cardiology-recommended coronary artery disease consortium pretest probability scores more accurately predict obstructive coronary disease and cardiovascular events than the Diamond Forrester score: The Partners Registry. Circulation. 2016;134:201-211. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023396

36. Mordi IR, Badar AA, Irving RJ, et al. Efficacy of noninvasive cardiac imaging tests in diagnosis and management of stable coronary artery disease. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017;13:427-437. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S106838

37. Borque JM, Beller GA. Value of exercise ECG for risk stratification in suspected or known CAD in the era of advanced imaging technologies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:1309-1321. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.09.006

38. Reinhardt SW, Lin C-J, Novak E, et al. Noninvasive cardiac testing vs clinical evaluation alone in acute chest pain: a secondary analysis of the ROMICAT-II randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:212-219. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7360

39. Fernandez-Friera L, Garcia-Alvarez A, Bagheriannejad-Esfahani F, et al. Diagnostic value of coronary artery calcium scoring in low-intermediate risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:17-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.08.037

40. Linde JJ, Kelbæk H, Hansen TF, et al. Coronary CT angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. J AM Coll Cardiol 2020;75:453-463. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.012

41. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 2010;122:e525-e555. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181fcae66

42. Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Five things physicians and patients should question. Choosing Wisely Campaign. February 21, 2013. Accessed September 28, 2021. www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SCCT-Choosing-Wisely-List.pdf

43. Hamm CW, Bassand J-P, Agewall S, et al; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2999-3054. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236

44. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and D-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:98-107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-2-200107170-00010

45. Ceriani E, Combescure C, Le Gal G, et al. Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:957-970. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03801.x

46. Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, et al. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in the emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2:1247-1255. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00790.x

47. Hendriksen JMT, Geersing G-J, Lucassen WAM, et al. Diagnostic prediction models for suspected pulmonary embolism: systematic review and independent external validation in primary care. BMJ. 2015;351:h4438. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4438

48. Shen J-H, Chen H-L, Chen J-R, et al. Comparison of the Wells score with the revised Geneva score for assessing suspected pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:482-492. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1250-2

49. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American College of Physicians; American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Preventative Cardiovascular Nurses Association; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:e44-e164. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...