Chest wall syndrome in primary care patients with chest pain: presentation, associated features and diagnosis

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nontraumatic Chest Wall Pain

Chest pain is a common reason that patients may present for evaluation in both ambulatory and emergency department settings, and is often of musculoskeletal origin in the former. Chest wall syndrome collectively describes the various entities that can contribute to chest wall pain of musculoskeletal origin and may affect any chest wall structure. Various imaging modalities may be employed for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall conditions, each with variable utility depending on the clinical scenario. We review the evidence for or against use of various imaging modalities for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall pain. 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.

[Chest pain]

Chest pain is a common symptom for which patients present to their primary care provider. Patients with acute chest pain pose a diagnostic challenge for the general practitioner since a wide range of diagnoses are possible, ranging from life-threatening acute myocardial infarction and pulmonary artery embolism to the far more frequent and harmless muscular tension belonging to the group of chest wall syndromes, as well as gastrointestinal causes such as gastroesophageal reflux disease. The clinical evaluation of patients with acute chest pain is based on a thorough clinical assessment by the physician, including a physical examination and medical history, irrespective of the location of the examination. This is followed by further technical examinations, such as a 12-lead electrocardiogram, and targeted laboratory diagnostics with point-of-care tests, including troponin and D‑dimer tests. Diagnostic pathways and score systems, such as the Marburg Heart Score, have been specially developed to enable patient assessment and provide orientation in the primary care setting.

Prevalence of pain and associated factors in Brazilian civil servants: an introductory analysis using baseline data from the ELSA-Brasil cohort

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

In Brazil, the prevalence and costs of pain will increase substantially with population ageing. Understanding of pain epidemiology is needed for the development of health care policies that can minimize this projected burden.

Objective:

To investigate the prevalence of pain and associated factors at baseline of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil).

Methods:

Data were collected in public institutions of higher education/research (2008–2010). Pain in the past 30 days and pain attributed to psychological distress (“with psychological attributions”—PPA) were evaluated by the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R). The independent t-test and χ² test investigated associations between sociodemographic/clinical factors and each pain episode. Multivariable analyses including age, sex, leisure-time physical activity, depression, and arthritis/rheumatism, and factors showing univariate associations at the P < 0.10 level, were performed.

Results:

Fifteen thousand ninety-five civil servants were included (52.1 ± 9.1 years, 54.4% female). The prevalence of any pain was 62.4% (95% confidence interval 61.6%–63.2%), and of PPA was 22.8% (95% confidence interval 22.2%–23.5%). Factors associated with any pain and PPA in multivariable analyses included age (odds ratio [OR] 0.97), female sex (OR 1.86–2.01), moderate and vigorous leisure-time physical activity (OR 0.60–0.84), excessive drinking (OR 0.68–0.83), depressive symptoms (OR 1.28–1.96), anxiety symptoms (OR 1.63–2.45), sleep disturbance (OR 1.62–1.79), and arthritis/rheumatism (OR 1.32–2.18). Nonroutine nonmanual occupation (manual occupation as reference), body mass index, and smoking were independently associated with either any pain or PPA.

Conclusion:

This study provided preliminary information on the epidemiology of pain at baseline of the largest Latin American cohort on chronic noncommunicable diseases.

Diagnostic Agreement between Prehospital Emergency and In-Hospital Physicians

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic agreement between the discharge diagnosis and the suspected diagnosis by the prehospital emergency physician and to run a sensitivity analysis of the most common diagnoses by the prehospital emergency physician.

METHODS

The diagnostic agreement was determined by a systematic comparison of the discharge diagnosis with suspected diagnosis by the prehospital emergency physician in a period of 24 months at the emergency medical services in Bad Belzig. The diagnostic agreement of the 13 most common discharge diagnoses was compared to the remaining diagnostic agreement. The results were tested for statistical significance using the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

In 64.1% of cases included, a diagnostic agreement occurred. There was a high proportion of diagnostic agreement for hypoglycemia (97%), atrial fibrillation (87%), cramping seizure (86%), hypertensive crisis (85.5%), and syncope (81%). There was a low proportion of diagnostic agreement for chest wall pain (27%), pneumonia (32%), and cardiac decompensation (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our attention in practice and emergency medical courses should be directed to chest pain patients and the main symptom of dyspnea, because of the high proportion of incorrect diagnoses by the prehospital emergency physician. It should be noted that 92% of incorrectly diagnosed chest wall pain cases were overestimated with an acute coronary syndrome.

Non-cardiac chest pain patients in the emergency department: Do physicians have a plan how to diagnose and treat them? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiac chest pain is common and there is no formal recommendation on what diagnostic tests to use to identify underlying diseases after an acute coronary syndrome has been ruled out.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic tests, treatment recommendations and initiated treatments in patients presenting with non-cardiac chest pain to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective medical chart review of patients presenting to the ED. Included were all medical records of patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED with chest pain and a non-cardiac discharge diagnosis between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011. Information on the diagnosis, diagnostic tests performed, treatment initiated and recommendation for further diagnostic testing or treatment were extracted. The primary outcomes of interest were the final diagnosis, diagnostic tests, and treatment recommendations. A formal ACS rule out testing was defined as serial three troponin testing.

RESULTS

In total, 1341 ED admissions for non-cardiac chest pain (4.2% of all ED admissions) were analyzed. Non-specific chest pain remained the discharge diagnosis in 44.7% (n = 599). Identified underlying diseases included musculoskeletal chest pain (n = 602, 44.9%), pulmonary (n = 30, 2.2%), GI-tract (n = 35, 2.6%), or psychiatric diseases (n = 75, 5.6%). In 81.4% at least one troponin test and in 89% one ECG were performed. A formal ACS rule out troponin testing was performed in 9.2% (GI-tract disease 14.3%, non-specific chest pain 14.0%, pulmonary disease 10.0%, musculoskeletal chest pain 4.7%, and psychiatric disease 4.0%). Most frequently analgesics were prescribed (51%). A diagnostic test with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was prescribed in 20% (mainly in gastrointestinal diseases). At discharge, over 72 different recommendations were given, ranging from no further measures to extensive cardiac evaluation.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, a formal work-up to rule out ACS was found in a minority of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain of non-cardiac origin. A wide variation in diagnostic processes and treatment recommendations reflect the uncertainty of clinicians on how to approach patients after a cardiac cause was considered unlikely. Panic and anxiety disorders were rarely considered and a useful PPI treatment trial to diagnose gastroesophageal reflux disease was infrequently recommended.

Frequency of chest pain in primary care, diagnostic tests performed and final diagnoses

OBJECTIVE

Observational study of patients with chest pain in primary care: determination of incidence, referral rate, diagnostic tests and (agreement between) working and final diagnoses.

METHODS

118 general practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands and Belgium recorded all patient contacts during  2weeks. Furthermore, patients presenting with chest pain were registered extensively. A follow-up form was filled in after 30 days.

RESULTS

22 294 patient contacts were registered. In 281 (1.26%), chest pain was a reason for consulting the GP (mean age for men 54.4/women 53 years). In this cohort of 281 patients, in 38.1% of patients, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was suspected at least temporarily during consultation, 40.2% of patients were referred to secondary care and 512 diagnostic tests were performed by GPs and consulted specialists. Musculoskeletal pain was the most frequent working (26.1%) and final diagnoses (33.1%). Potentially life-threatening diseases as final diagnosis (such as myocardial infarction) accounted for 8.4% of all chest pain cases. In 23.1% of cases, a major difference between working and final diagnoses was found, in 0.7% a severe disease was initially missed by the GP.

CONCLUSION

Chest pain was present in 281 patients (1.26% of all consultations). Final diagnoses were mostly non-life-threatening. Nevertheless, in 8.4% of patients with chest pain, life-threatening underlying causes were identified. This seems reflected in the magnitude and wide variety of diagnostic tests performed in these patients by GPs and specialists, in the (safe) overestimation of life-threatening diseases by GPs at initial assessment and in the high referral rate we found.

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.

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”.

Treatment efficacy for non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) leads to impaired quality of life and is associated with a high disease burden. Upon ruling out cardiovascular disease, only vague recommendations exist for further treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize treatment efficacy for patients presenting with NCCP.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis. In July 2013, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating non-surgical treatments in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were poor study quality and small sample size (<10 patients per group).

RESULTS

Thirty eligible RCT's were included. Most studies assessed PPI efficacy for gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD, n = 10). Two RCTs included musculoskeletal chest pain, seven psychotropic drugs, and eleven various psychological interventions. Study quality was high in five RCTs and acceptable in 25. PPI treatment in patients with GERD (5 RCTs, 192 patients) was more effective than placebo [pooled OR 11.7 (95% CI 5.5 to 25.0, heterogeneity I2 = 6.1%)]. The pooled OR in GERD negative patients (4 RCTs, 156 patients) was 0.8 (95% CI 0.2 to 2.8, heterogeneity I2 = 50.4%). In musculoskeletal NCCP (2 RCTs, 229 patients) manual therapy was more effective than usual care but not than home exercise [pooled mean difference 0.5 (95% CI -0.3 to 1.3, heterogeneity I2 = 46.2%)]. The findings for cognitive behavioral treatment, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants were mixed. Most evidence was available for cognitive behavioral treatment interventions.

LIMITATIONS

Only a small number of studies were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the disease underlying NCCP is important. For patients with suspected GERD, high-dose treatment with PPI is effective. Only limited evidence was available for most prevalent diseases manifesting with chest pain. In patients with idiopathic NCCP, treatments based on cognitive behavioral principles might be considered.

Management of chest pain: a prospective study from Norwegian out-of-hours primary care

Background

Chest pain is a common diagnostic challenge in primary care and diagnostic measures are often aimed at confirming or ruling out acute ischaemic heart disease. The aim of this study was to investigate management of patients with chest pain out-of-hours, including the use of ECG and laboratory tests, assessment of severity of illness, and the physicians’ decisions on treatment and admittance to hospital.

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.

Results

A total of 832 patients with chest pain were registered. The first 100 patients (corresponding doctor-patient pairs) were included in the study according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Median age of included patients was 46 years, men constituted 58%. An ECG was taken in 92 of the patients. Of the 24 patients categorised to acute level of response, 15 had a NACA-score indicating a potentially or definitely life-threatening medical situation. 50 of the patients were admitted to a hospital for further management, of which 43 were thought to have ischaemic heart disease. Musculoskeletal pain was the second most common cause of pain (n = 22). Otherwise the patients were thought to have a variety of conditions, most of them managed at a primary care level.

Conclusions

Patients with chest pain presenting at out-of-hours services in Norway are investigated for acute heart disease, but less than half are admitted to hospital for probable acute coronary syndrome, and only a minority is given emergency treatment for acute coronary syndrome. A wide variety of other diagnoses are suggested by the doctors for patients presenting with chest pain. Deciding the appropriate level of response for such patients is a difficult task, and both over- and under-triage probably occur in out-of-hours primary care.

Diagnostic indicators of non-cardiovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-cardiovascular chest pain (NCCP) has a high healthcare cost, but insufficient guidelines exist for its diagnostic investigation. The objective of the present work was to identify important diagnostic indicators and their accuracy for specific and non-specific conditions underlying NCCP.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. In May 2012, six databases were searched. Hand and bibliography searches were also conducted. Studies evaluating a diagnostic test against a reference test in patients with NCCP were included. Exclusion criteria were having <30 patients per group, and evaluating diagnostic tests for acute cardiovascular disease. Diagnostic accuracy is given in likelihood ratios (LR): very good (LR+ >10, LR- <0.1); good (LR + 5 to 10, LR- 0.1 to 0.2); fair (LR + 2 to 5, LR- 0.2 to 0.5); or poor (LR + 1 to 2, LR- 0.5 to 1). Joined meta-analysis of the diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity was performed by applying a hierarchical Bayesian model.

RESULTS

Out of 6,316 records, 260 were reviewed in full text, and 28 were included: 20 investigating gastroesophageal reflux disorders (GERD), 3 musculoskeletal chest pain, and 5 psychiatric conditions. Study quality was good in 15 studies and moderate in 13. GERD diagnosis was more likely with typical GERD symptoms (LR + 2.70 and 2.75, LR- 0.42 and 0.78) than atypical GERD symptoms (LR + 0.49, LR- 2.71). GERD was also more likely with a positive response to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) test (LR + 5.48, 7.13, and 8.56; LR- 0.24, 0.25, and 0.28); the posterior mean sensitivity and specificity of six studies were 0.89 (95% credible interval, 0.28 to 1) and 0.88 (95% credible interval, 0.26 to 1), respectively. Panic and anxiety screening scores can identify individuals requiring further testing for anxiety or panic disorders. Clinical findings in musculoskeletal pain either had a fair to moderate LR + and a poor LR- or vice versa.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NCCP, thorough clinical evaluation of the patient's history, symptoms, and clinical findings can indicate the most appropriate diagnostic tests. Treatment response to high-dose PPI treatment provides important information regarding GERD, and should be considered early. Panic and anxiety disorders are often undiagnosed and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of chest pain.

A randomized clinical trial of chiropractic treatment and self-management in patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain: 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

We have previously reported short-term follow-up from a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing 2 treatments for acute musculoskeletal chest pain: (1) chiropractic treatment and (2) self-management. Results indicated a positive effect in favor of the chiropractic treatment after 4 and 12 weeks. The current article investigates the hypothesis that the advantage observed at 4 and 12 weeks would be sustained after 1 year. In addition, we describe self-reported consequences of acute musculoskeletal chest pain at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

In a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial undertaken at an emergency cardiology department and 4 outpatient chiropractic clinics, 115 consecutive patients with acute chest pain of musculoskeletal origin were included. After the baseline evaluation, patients were randomized to 4 weeks of either chiropractic treatment or self-management, with posttreatment questionnaire follow-up 52 weeks later. The primary outcome measures were change in pain intensity (11-point box numerical rating scale) and self-perceived change in pain (7-point ordinal scale).

RESULTS

Both groups experienced decreases in pain, positive global, self-perceived treatment effect, and increases in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups at the 1-year follow-up, and we could not deduce a common trend in favor of either intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

At the 1-year follow-up, we found no difference between groups in terms of pain intensity and self-perceived change in chest pain in the first randomized clinical trial assessing chiropractic treatment vs minimal intervention for patients with acute musculoskeletal chest pain. Further research into health care utilization and use of prescriptive medication is warranted.

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.

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.