Original ResearchIs the initial diagnostic impression of “noncardiac chest pain” adequate to exclude cardiac disease?
Introduction
Heart disease is the leading cause of mortality among the US population, causing more than 710,000 deaths per year.1 Furthermore, the rate of missed acute myocardial infarction in the emergency department (ED) is 2.1%,2 representing a significant source of patient morbidity and mortality, as well as insurance losses because of malpractice.3 The consequence has been a conservative strategy by emergency physicians in the evaluation of chest pain, exemplified by the fact that more than two thirds of patients who have chest pain and are admitted to the hospital do not have an acute ischemic syndrome. However, with increased examination of health care spending, the cost of noncardiac chest pain admissions has placed emergency physicians under pressure to limit chest pain admissions to high-risk patients. Simultaneously, the fear of an unexpected bad outcome has limited their willingness to send undiagnosed chest pain patients home from the ED.
Because of these concerns, risk stratification of patients with chest pain has become common practice. Although many risk stratification schemes have been proposed for patients with chest pain,4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9. most focus on patients who are likely to have myocardial ischemia as a cause of their pain. Even with these risk stratification schemes, the most widely adopted and earliest risk stratification tool used in practice is the initial impression. When evaluating patients experiencing chest pain in the ED, clinicians must form an initial impression based on immediately available data, such as medical history, physical examination findings, and often ECG findings. In some patients, the initial impression does not suggest a cardiac cause of the patient's chest pain. It has been suggested these patients do not need any further cardiac evaluation performed.9
Although this approach is intuitive and practical, patient outcomes have not been described. Furthermore, early studies demonstrated that patients labeled as having noncardiac chest pain have an incidence of coronary artery disease ranging from 0.8% to 28.1%,10 making this a subset of patients whose outcomes should be determined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients presenting to the ED with chest pain whose treating physicians' initial impression was noncardiac chest pain. We reviewed the prospectively collected Internet Tracking Registry for Acute Coronary Syndromes (i∗trACS) database of undifferentiated patients with chest pain to characterize this group of patients, identify patients with adverse cardiac events, and describe their associated risk factors.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
We performed secondary analysis of the prospectively collected i∗trACS chest pain registry.
Results
Of the 17,737 total i∗trACS patients, 570 (3.2%) patients had an initial diagnostic impression of acute myocardial infarction, 1,536 (8.7%) patients had unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction, 4,699 (26.5%) patients had high-risk chest pain, 6,954 (39.2%) patients had low-risk chest pain, and 3,696 (20.8%) patients had noncardiac chest pain. The extent of evaluation increased with severity of the initial diagnostic impression, with 53.2% of patients with low-risk chest pain having
Limitations
There are several limitations to our study that should be recognized. The i∗trACS registry includes mostly patients with chest pain. Although patients with syncope, shortness of breath, or “anginal equivalents” are included in the database, there was a questionnaire-driven bias toward including patients with chest pain, which was evident throughout the study.
The initial impression was based on the initial history, physical examination, and 12-lead ECG. Serum cardiac biomarkers were not included
Discussion
The ED evaluation of the patient with chest pain remains a difficult task. Conservative approaches that include admission and provocative testing of low-risk patients with chest pain are cost-prohibitive. Liberal approaches to these patients are fraught with difficulties surrounding missed acute coronary syndromes and potential adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, a single objective test to identify these patients prospectively is not yet available. Despite our best efforts using clinical risk
References (21)
- et al.
Litigation against the emergency physician: common features in cases of missed myocardial infarction
Ann Emerg Med
(1989) - et al.
Comprehensive strategy for the evaluation and triage of the chest pain patient
Ann Emerg Med
(1997) - et al.
Cardiac troponins
J Emerg Med
(2002) - et al.
Clinical value of acute rest technetium-99m tetrofosmin tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with acute chest pain and nondiagnostic electrocardiograms
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1998) - et al.
Clinical characteristics and outcome of acute myocardial infarction in patients with initially normal or nonspecific electrocardiograms (a report from the Multicenter Chest Pain Study)
Am J Cardiol
(1989) - et al.
Deaths: Final Data for 2000
(2002) - et al.
Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department
N Engl J Med
(2000) - et al.
Emergency room triage of patients with acute chest pain by means of rapid testing for cardiac troponin T or troponin I
N Engl J Med
(1997) - et al.
Cardiac-specific troponin I levels to predict the risk of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes
N Engl J Med
(1996) - et al.
The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making
JAMA
(2000)
Cited by (0)
Dr. Miller and Dr. Hoekstra were formerly affiliated with The Ohio State University Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbus, OH.
The abstract was presented in part in poster format at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, Atlanta, GA, May 2001.
The i∗trACS registry was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals.
Author contributions: The i∗trACS registry, patient enrollment, and data collection were supervised by JWH, CVP, JEH, and BRT. All authors contributed to the research question and concept of the data analysis. CDM, CJL, and SK performed the chart review. Statistical advice and data analysis were performed by CJL. CDM, SK, and JWH drafted the Introduction and Discussion. Materials and Methods and Results were drafted by CJL and CDM. All authors contributed to manuscript revision. CDM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Reprints not available from the authors.