Investigation and management of chest pain

Effectiveness of Modified HEART Score in Predicting Major Adverse Cardiac Events

Objective

The most important problem for emergency physicians in patients presenting with chest pain is deciding whether to discharge the patient or not. Therefore, many scoring systems have been developed to help with this decision making process. We aim to achieve a modified HEART value by combining the VAS value with the HEART score.

Materials and Methods

Data were collected on age, sex, duration of the symptoms, pain severity using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), and the presence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE). The HEART score was calculated and modified (mHEART) by adding 1 point to the total HEART score for a VAS score of ≥7.

Results

During the study period, 4781 patients were admitted, and 293 participants were analyzed. Of the patients, 34(11.6%) experienced MACE within a month after the encounter. The mean VAS scores were 5.65±1.44. However, 77(26.3%) patients had VAS scores ≥7. Taking 3 as the threshold, 42(14.3%) patients had HEART scores of 4 and above, where 47(16.0%) had mHEART scores ≥4. The mHEART scoring demonstrated better test indicators than the HEART score. According to the HEART score, 6(2.3%) of the 251 patients predicted as negative would develop MACE, but this number decreased to 1(0.4%) in 246 using the mHEART score.

Conclusion

Although the HEART score performs reasonably well in discriminating patients who are MACE negative, it is possible to further improve the score by adding the VAS item. After validation by other studies, we would suggest modifying the HEART score by including the VAS item.

Performing stable angina pectoris: an ethnographic study

Symptoms play a crucial part in the formulation of medical diagnoses, yet the construction and interpretation of symptom narratives is not well understood. The diagnosis of angina is largely based on symptoms, but a substantial minority of patients diagnosed with "non-cardiac" chest pain go on to have a heart attack. In this ethnographic study our aims were to understand: (1) how the patients' accounts are performed or enacted in consultations with doctors; (2) the ways in which ambiguity in the symptom narrative is managed by doctors; and (3) how doctors reach or do not reach a diagnostic decision. We observed 59 consultations of patients in a UK teaching hospital with new onset chest pain who had been referred for a specialist opinion in ambulatory care. We found that patients rarely gave a history that, without further interrogation, satisfied the doctors, who actively restructured the complex narrative until it fitted a diagnostic canon, detaching it from the patient's interpretation and explanation. A minority of doctors asked about chest pain symptoms outside the canon. Re-structuring into the canonical classification was sometimes resisted by patients who contested key concepts, like exertion. Symptom narratives were sometimes unstable, with central features changing on interrogation and re-telling. When translation was required for South Asian patients, doctors considered the history less relevant to the diagnosis. Diagnosis and effective treatment could be enhanced by research on the diagnostic and prognostic value of the terms patients use to describe their symptoms.

The view of gastroenterologists on non-cardiac chest pain in Asia

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiac chest pain is an important disorder in Asia. The practice and views of gastroenterologists on non-cardiac chest pain in this region are not known.

AIMS

To determine the current understanding, diagnostic practice and treatment strategies among gastroenterologists on the management of non-cardiac chest pain in Asia.

METHODS

A 24-item questionnaire was sent to gastroenterologists in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand.

RESULTS

186 gastroenterologists participated with a response rate of 74%. 98% of gastroenterologists managed patients with non-cardiac chest pain over the last 6 months. 64% felt that the number of non-cardiac chest pain patients was increasing and 85% believed that the most common cause of non-cardiac chest pain was GERD. 94% of the gastroenterologists believed that they should manage non-cardiac chest pain patients, but only 41% were comfortable in diagnosing non-cardiac chest pain. The average number of investigations performed was four in non-cardiac chest pain patients, and oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy was the most commonly used initial test. A proton pump inhibitor was considered the first-line treatment in non-cardiac chest pain and was reported as the most effective treatment by the gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSION

Most gastroenterologists were practicing evidence-based medicine, but frequent use of investigations and a lack of awareness of the role of visceral hypersensitivity in non-cardiac chest pain patients were noted.

Diagnosis and treatment of noncardiac chest pain

Chest pain is common: one in four of the population have an episode annually. Of those who present to hospital, nearly two-thirds have noncardiac chest pain. More than half of these cases might have gastroesophageal reflux disease. Opinion differs over what is the most appropriate application of current investigatory methods. Evidence suggests that, once cardiac disease is ruled unlikely, empiric use of a proton pump inhibitor is an option; if acid suppression fails, detailed investigations as clinically indicated can be considered. A range of esophageal investigations is available, including 24-hour or 48-hour esophageal pH testing and esophageal manometry, as well as provocative tests, but there is no consensus as to which methods are the most useful. Psychiatric evaluation is not routine, but psychiatric or psychological disorders are common. Musculoskeletal disorders are also common, but are frequently overlooked. It is possible to subject patients to a comprehensive set of investigations before empiric therapy, but recent studies have failed to demonstrate an improved outcome using this exhaustive approach. A new tactic is required, with less attention spent on absolute diagnostic accuracy and more emphasis on optimizing the long-term clinical outcome in patients with noncardiac chest pain. It is possible that the targeted use of multiple drug trials in a policy of 'therapy as investigation' might be a superior methodology.