Alan C Cameron1, Linsay McCallum2, Thomas Gardiner3, Claire Darroch3, Matthew R Walters2, Keith G Oldroyd4. 1. Department of Cardiology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 3. Department of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 4. Department of Cardiology, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Chest pain presentations are common although most patients do not have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that our local therapeutic guideline was leading to many low risk patients being inappropriately treated with potent anti-thrombotic therapy for ACS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of patients presenting with suspected ACS to the Western Infirmary Glasgow over a 2 month period between 6/10/13-3/11/13 and 5/4/14-2/5/14. We collated data on demographics, investigation, initial management and final diagnosis. Patients taking warfarin were excluded. We calculated sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for our local guideline, the SIGN guideline and a new guideline proposal. RESULTS: We studied 202 patients of whom 112 (55%) were male with mean (SD) age 60 (15) years. Full anti-thrombotic therapy for ACS was recommended in 91 patients (45%) according to the NHS GG&C guideline, 37 (18%) by the SIGN guideline and 30 (15%) by our new guideline proposal. The final diagnosis was ACS in 39 patients (19%). The current NHS GG&C guideline had a sensitivity of 80%, specificity 63% and AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.63, 0.80). The respective values were 62%, 92% and 0.77 (95% CI 0.67, 0.86) for the SIGN guideline and 54%, 94% and 0.74 (95% CI 0.64, 0.84) for our new proposed guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-fifth of patients who present with chest pain or suspected ACS have ACS as their final diagnosis. Our new guideline proposal is highly specific and would minimize unnecessary administration of potent anti-thrombotic therapy to low risk patients.
AIMS: Chest pain presentations are common although most patients do not have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that our local therapeutic guideline was leading to many low risk patients being inappropriately treated with potent anti-thrombotic therapy for ACS. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of patients presenting with suspected ACS to the Western Infirmary Glasgow over a 2 month period between 6/10/13-3/11/13 and 5/4/14-2/5/14. We collated data on demographics, investigation, initial management and final diagnosis. Patients taking warfarin were excluded. We calculated sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for our local guideline, the SIGN guideline and a new guideline proposal. RESULTS: We studied 202 patients of whom 112 (55%) were male with mean (SD) age 60 (15) years. Full anti-thrombotic therapy for ACS was recommended in 91 patients (45%) according to the NHS GG&C guideline, 37 (18%) by the SIGN guideline and 30 (15%) by our new guideline proposal. The final diagnosis was ACS in 39 patients (19%). The current NHS GG&C guideline had a sensitivity of 80%, specificity 63% and AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.63, 0.80). The respective values were 62%, 92% and 0.77 (95% CI 0.67, 0.86) for the SIGN guideline and 54%, 94% and 0.74 (95% CI 0.64, 0.84) for our new proposed guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Only one-fifth of patients who present with chest pain or suspected ACS have ACS as their final diagnosis. Our new guideline proposal is highly specific and would minimize unnecessary administration of potent anti-thrombotic therapy to low risk patients.
Authors: Gilles Montalescot; Leonardo Bolognese; Dariusz Dudek; Patrick Goldstein; Christian Hamm; Jean-Francois Tanguay; Jurrien M ten Berg; Debra L Miller; Timothy M Costigan; Jochen Goedicke; Johanne Silvain; Paolo Angioli; Jacek Legutko; Margit Niethammer; Zuzana Motovska; Joseph A Jakubowski; Guillaume Cayla; Luigi Oltrona Visconti; Eric Vicaut; Petr Widimsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christian W Hamm; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Stefan Agewall; Jeroen Bax; Eric Boersma; Hector Bueno; Pio Caso; Dariusz Dudek; Stephan Gielen; Kurt Huber; Magnus Ohman; Mark C Petrie; Frank Sonntag; Miguel Sousa Uva; Robert F Storey; William Wijns; Doron Zahger Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Hani Jneid; Jeffrey L Anderson; R Scott Wright; Cynthia D Adams; Charles R Bridges; Donald E Casey; Steven M Ettinger; Francis M Fesmire; Theodore G Ganiats; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; George J Philippides; Pierre Theroux; Nanette K Wenger; James Patrick Zidar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ezra A Amsterdam; J Douglas Kirk; David A Bluemke; Deborah Diercks; Michael E Farkouh; J Lee Garvey; Michael C Kontos; James McCord; Todd D Miller; Anthony Morise; L Kristin Newby; Frederick L Ruberg; Kristine Anne Scordo; Paul D Thompson Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lars Wallentin; Richard C Becker; Andrzej Budaj; Christopher P Cannon; Håkan Emanuelsson; Claes Held; Jay Horrow; Steen Husted; Stefan James; Hugo Katus; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Benjamin M Scirica; Allan Skene; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Robert F Storey; Robert A Harrington; Anneli Freij; Mona Thorsén Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 29.690