Caroline Marie Patterson1, Arjun Nair2, Nabeel Ahmed3, Leoni Bryan4, Derek Bell1, Edward David Nicol5. 1. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, London, UK Imperial College, London, UK. 2. Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK. 3. Ealing Hospital, London, UK. 4. NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, London, UK. 5. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK Imperial College, London, UK Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical outcomes of patients for whom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recent-onset chest pain guidance would not have recommended further investigation, compared with those of patients where further investigation would have been recommended. METHODS: 557 consecutive patients with recent-onset chest pain attending rapid-access chest pain clinics (RACPC) in two district general hospitals over a 9-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) was calculated according to NICE-defined modified Diamond-Forrester criteria. Patients were categorised into those for whom NICE guidelines recommend (NICE-Y) and do not recommend (NICE-N) further investigation. Main outcome measures were subsequent diagnosis of significant CAD and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months. RESULTS: 187/557 (33.6%) patients comprised NICE-Y group, with 370/557 (66.4%) in NICE-N group. 360/370 (97.3%) of NICE-N group would have been excluded from further investigation due to non-anginal chest pain. Of 92/557 (16.5%) patients subsequently diagnosed with significant CAD, 35/557 (9.5%) were from NICE-N group versus 57/557 (30.5%, p<0.0001) from NICE-Y group. Of 11 patients experiencing at least one MACE, 7/557 (1.9%) were from NICE-N group, versus 4/557 (2.1%, p=1.000) from NICE-Y group. CONCLUSIONS: The rigid application of NICE chest pain guidance to a RACPC population may result in up to two-thirds of patients being excluded from further cardiac investigation. Potentially, up to 10% of these patients may subsequently be diagnosed with significant CAD, with up to 2% potentially experiencing a major adverse cardiac event. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical outcomes of patients for whom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recent-onset chest pain guidance would not have recommended further investigation, compared with those of patients where further investigation would have been recommended. METHODS: 557 consecutive patients with recent-onset chest pain attending rapid-access chest pain clinics (RACPC) in two district general hospitals over a 9-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) was calculated according to NICE-defined modified Diamond-Forrester criteria. Patients were categorised into those for whom NICE guidelines recommend (NICE-Y) and do not recommend (NICE-N) further investigation. Main outcome measures were subsequent diagnosis of significant CAD and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months. RESULTS: 187/557 (33.6%) patients comprised NICE-Y group, with 370/557 (66.4%) in NICE-N group. 360/370 (97.3%) of NICE-N group would have been excluded from further investigation due to non-anginal chest pain. Of 92/557 (16.5%) patients subsequently diagnosed with significant CAD, 35/557 (9.5%) were from NICE-N group versus 57/557 (30.5%, p<0.0001) from NICE-Y group. Of 11 patients experiencing at least one MACE, 7/557 (1.9%) were from NICE-N group, versus 4/557 (2.1%, p=1.000) from NICE-Y group. CONCLUSIONS: The rigid application of NICE chest pain guidance to a RACPC population may result in up to two-thirds of patients being excluded from further cardiac investigation. Potentially, up to 10% of these patients may subsequently be diagnosed with significant CAD, with up to 2% potentially experiencing a major adverse cardiac event. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Steven A Farmer; Ali Moghtaderi; Samantha Schilsky; David Magid; William Sage; Nori Allen; Frederick A Masoudi; Avi Dor; Bernard Black Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Robert Roehle; Viktoria Wieske; Georg M Schuetz; Pascal Gueret; Daniele Andreini; Willem Bob Meijboom; Gianluca Pontone; Mario Garcia; Hatem Alkadhi; Lily Honoris; Jörg Hausleiter; Nuno Bettencourt; Elke Zimmermann; Sebastian Leschka; Bernhard Gerber; Carlos Rochitte; U Joseph Schoepf; Abbas Arjmand Shabestari; Bjarne Nørgaard; Akira Sato; Juhani Knuuti; Matthijs F L Meijs; Harald Brodoefel; Shona M M Jenkins; Kristian Altern Øvrehus; Axel Cosmus Pyndt Diederichsen; Ashraf Hamdan; Bjørn Arild Halvorsen; Vladimir Mendoza Rodriguez; Yung Liang Wan; Johannes Rixe; Mehraj Sheikh; Christoph Langer; Said Ghostine; Eugenio Martuscelli; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Arthur Scholte; Konstantin Nikolaou; Geir Ulimoen; Zhaoqi Zhang; Hans Mickley; Koen Nieman; Philipp A Kaufmann; Ronny Ralf Buechel; Bernhard A Herzog; Melvin Clouse; David A Halon; Jonathan Leipsic; David Bush; Reda Jakamy; Kai Sun; Lin Yang; Thorsten Johnson; Jean-Pierre Laissy; Roy Marcus; Simone Muraglia; Jean-Claude Tardif; Benjamin Chow; Narinder Paul; David Maintz; John Hoe; Albert de Roos; Robert Haase; Michael Laule; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 5.315