scholarly journals Invasive Coronary Angiography after Chest Pain Presentations to Emergency Departments

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (24) ◽  
pp. 9502
Author(s):  
Frank M. Sanfilippo ◽  
Graham S. Hillis ◽  
Jamie M. Rankin ◽  
Donald Latchem ◽  
Carl J. Schultz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Discharge Diagnosis ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Interhospital Transfer ◽  
And Gender

We investigated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain to identify factors that influence the use of invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Using linked ED, hospitalisations, death and cardiac biomarker data, we identified people aged 20 years and over who presented with chest pain to tertiary public hospital EDs in Western Australia from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2017 (ED chest pain cohort). We report patient characteristics, ED discharge diagnosis, pathways to ICA, ICA within 90 days, troponin test results, and gender differences. Associations were examined with the Pearson Chi-squared test and multivariate logistic regression. There were 16,974 people in the ED chest pain cohort, with a mean age of 55.6 years and 50.7% males, accounting for 20,131 ED presentations. Acute coronary syndrome was the ED discharge diagnosis in 10.4% of presentations. ED pathways were: discharged home (57.5%); hospitalisation (41.7%); interhospital transfer (0.4%); and died in ED (0.03%)/inpatients (0.3%). There were 1546 (9.1%) ICAs performed within 90 days of the first ED chest pain visit, of which 59 visits (3.8%) had no troponin tests and 565 visits (36.6%) had normal troponin. ICAs were performed in more men than women (12.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.0001; adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.65, 2.18), and mostly within 7 days. Equal numbers of males and females present with chest pain to tertiary hospital EDs, but men are twice as likely to get ICA. Over one-third of ICAs occur in those with normal troponin levels, indicating that further investigation is required to determine risk profile, outcomes and cost effectiveness.

scholarly journals The Radiologist as a Gatekeeper in Chest Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6677
Author(s):  
Silvia Pradella ◽  
Giulia Zantonelli ◽  
Giulia Grazzini ◽  
Diletta Cozzi ◽  
Ginevra Danti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Aortic Pathology ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Ct Technology ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Rule Out

Chest pain is a symptom that can be found in life-threatening conditions such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Those patients requiring invasive coronary angiography treatment or surgery should be identified. Often the clinical setting and laboratory tests are not sufficient to rule out a coronary or aortic syndrome. Cardiac radiological imaging has evolved in recent years both in magnetic resonance (MR) and in computed tomography (CT). CT, in particular, due to its temporal and spatial resolution, the quickness of the examination, and the availability of scanners, is suitable for the evaluation of these patients. In particular, the latest-generation CT scanners allow the exclusion of diagnoses such as coronary artery disease and aortic pathology, thereby reducing the patient’s stay in hospital and safely selecting patients by distinguishing those who do not need further treatment from those who will need more- or less-invasive therapies. CT additionally reduces costs by improving long-term patient outcome. The limitations related to patient characteristics and those related to radiation exposure are weakening with the improvement of CT technology.

Risk stratifying chest pain patients in the emergency department using HEART, GRACE and TIMI scores, with a single contemporary troponin result, to predict major adverse cardiac events

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 420-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D W Reaney ◽  
Hamish I Elliott ◽  
Awsan Noman ◽  
Jamie G Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Chest Pain ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Diagnostic Characteristics ◽  
Coronary Events

BackgroundThe majority of patients presenting to the ED with cardiac sounding chest pain have a non-diagnostic ECG and the problem of differentiating those suffering an acute coronary syndrome from those without is familiar to all ED clinical staff. To stratify risk in these patients, specific scores have been developed. Recent work has focused on incorporating newer high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays; however, issues regarding performance and availability of these assays remain.AimProspectively compare HEART, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) scores, using a single contemporary cTn at admission, to predict a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 30 days.MethodProspective observational cohort study performed in a UK tertiary hospital in patients with suspected cardiac chest pain and no significant ST elevation on initial ECG. Data collection took place 2 December 2014 to 8 February 2016. The treating clinician recorded risk score data real time and a single contemporary cTn taken at presentation was used in score calculation. The primary endpoint was 30-day MACE. C-statistic was determined for each score and diagnostic characteristics of high-risk and low-risk cut-offs were calculated.Results189/1000 patients in the study developed a 30-day MACE. The c-statistic of HEART for 30-day MACE (0.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.90)) was higher than TIMI (0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81)) and GRACE (0.74 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.78)).HEART score ≤3 identified low-risk patients with sensitivity 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 99.6% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.9%) exceeding TIMI 0 (sensitivity 97.4% (95% CI 93.9% to 99.1%) and NPV 97.8% (95% CI 94.8% to 99.1%)) and GRACE score 0–55 (sensitivity 95.2% (95% CI 91.1% to 97.8%) and NPV 95.8% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.7%)).ConclusionHEART outperformed both TIMI and GRACE in overall discriminative capacity for 30-day MACE. Using a single contemporary cTn at presentation, a HEART score of ≤3 demonstrated sensitivity and NPV of ≥99.5% for 30-day MACE. These results reach the threshold for a safe discharge strategy but should be interpreted thoughtfully in light of other work.

Relative clinical value of coronary computed tomography and stress echocardiography-guided management of stable chest pain patients: a propensity-matched analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anastasia Vamvakidou ◽  
Oleksandr Danylenko ◽  
Jiwan Pradhan ◽  
Mihir Kelshiker ◽  
Timothy Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Stress Echocardiography ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Clinical Value ◽  
Coronary Computed Tomography ◽  
Stable Chest Pain

Abstract Aims The European Society of Cardiology recommends coronary computed tomography (CCT) for the assessment of low-risk patients with suspected stable angina. We aimed to assess in a real-life setting the relative clinical value of stress echocardiography (SE)- and CCT-guided management in this population. Methods and results Patients with stable chest pain and no prior history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent CCT or SE as the initial investigative strategy were propensity-matched (990 patients each group-age: 59 ± 13.2 years, males: 47.9%) to account for baseline differences in cardiovascular risk factors. Inconclusive tests were 6% vs. 3% (P &lt; 0.005) in CCT vs. SE. Severe (≥70% stenosis) on CCT and inducible ischaemia on SE detected obstructive CAD by invasive coronary angiography in 63% vs. 57% patients (P = 0.33). Over the follow-up period (median 717, interquartile range 93–1069 days) more patients underwent invasive coronary angiography (21.5% vs. 7.3%, P &lt; 0.005), revascularization (7.3% vs. 3.5%, P &lt; 0.005), further functional testing 33.4% vs. 8.7% (P &lt; 0.005), but more patients were prescribed statins 8.8% vs. 3.8% (P &lt; 0.005) in the CCT vs. the SE arm, respectively. Combined all-cause mortality and acute myocardial infarction was low—CCT-2.3% and SE-3.3%—with no significant difference (P = 0.16). Conclusion Initial SE-guided management was similar for the detection of obstructive CAD, demonstrated better resource utilization, but was associated with reduced prescription of statins although with no difference in medium-term outcome compared to CCT in this very low-risk population. However, a randomized study with longer follow-up is needed to confirm the clinical value of our findings.

What is the Optimal Rate of Invasive Coronary Angiography After Acute Coronary Syndrome? (ANZACS-QI 22)

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Chan ◽  
Samia Ghazali ◽  
Vanessa Selak ◽  
Mildred Lee ◽  
Tony Scott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Optimal Rate ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

Abstract 1631: Exclusion of Coronary Artery Stenosis by Non-invasive Coronary Angiography Using Multislice Computed Tomography Determines a Good Long-term Prognosis in Patients With Chest Pain - Follow-Up Study in 1017 Patients

Circulation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (suppl_16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Steinbigler ◽  
Eike Böhme ◽  
Carla Weber ◽  
Andreas Czernik ◽  
Jürgen Buck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Multislice Computed Tomography ◽  
Coronary Artery Stenosis ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Noninvasive Coronary Angiography

Long-term prognosis following exclusion of coronary artery stenosis by noninvasive coronary angiography using multislice computed tomography (MSCT) up to now has not been determined. We therefore performed noninvasive coronary angiography using MSCT (Philips Brilliance, 4 – 64 slices, retrospective ECG gating, 0.625mm collimation, 0.4sec gantry rotation time) in 1017 consecutive patients (657 male, 360 female, age 64±11years, 240 patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD)) referred to MSCT-study with chest pain. Patients with acute coronary syndromes, stents, atrial fibrillation and calcium scores > 1500 were not included. Based on MSCT results invasive study was recommended or not. All patients or the referring clinician were contacted by telephone or mail at least 6 months after their scan. Diagnostic image quality could be obtained in 992/1017 (98%) patients. In 620 of 992 patients (=63%) coronary artery stenosis could be excluded and invasive study was not recommended. Despite these recommendations invasive study was performed due to other clinical indications in 83/620 patients within < 30 days and in 43/537 patients within > 30days after the scan. Only in 13/126 patients stenoses >50% were found but no treatment was necessary. During the mean follow-up period of 612±192days 7/620 patients died but no patient suffered from cardiac death or acute myocardial infarction. In 372 of 992 patients invasive coronary angiography was recommended and performed in 230 patients (n=167 within < 30days, n=63 within >30days). In 165/230 patients stenoses >50% were found, treated by angioplasty or stents in 139/165 patients. During the mean follow-up period of 602±161days 11/372 patients died, two patients suffered from sudden, two patients from non-sudden cardiac death and one patient survived acute myocardial infarction. Thus, exclusion of coronary artery stenoses by noninvasive coronary angiography using multislice computed tomography determines a good lomg-term prognosis in patients with chest pain.

Abstract 19638: A High Percentage of Patients Referred for Invasive Coronary Angiography Found to Have No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease are Referred for Appropriate Indications

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Ouellette ◽  
Virginia Workman ◽  
Adrian Loffler ◽  
George A Beller ◽  
Jamieson M Bourque
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Angiography ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
Invasive Coronary Angiography ◽  
Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Obstructive Disease ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Artery Disease

Introduction: The incidence of normal coronary arteries in patients referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) ranges from 30-60%. We sought to evaluate patterns of referral, assess the rate of appropriate catheterization and determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in our population by appropriateness and indication. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 930 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic ICA. Indications for ICA were reviewed and appropriate use criteria (AUC) were applied to the cohort retrospectively. Patients with known CAD, prior MI, CHF, or indication for pre-transplant workup or cardiac surgery were excluded. Rates of non-obstructive (21-49% stenosis) and obstructive CAD (≥50%) were compared by appropriateness status using Fisher’s Exact Testing. Results: Of the 930 patients studied, 55.6% were male with median age of 62 and 10-year ASCVD risk score of 17.7%. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was the most prevalent indication for referral (48.5%) with a 68.6% prevalence of obstructive CAD. A positive stress test was the indication in 18.9% with a 51.4% rate of obstructive CAD. The rates of the remaining referral indications are given in Figure 1. In those referred appropriately for angiography (n=923), the prevalence of obstructive disease was 55.9% (n=516), non-obstructive disease 13.6% (n=125), and normal coronaries 30.6%(n=282). Inappropriate referral was identified in only 7 patients (0.8%), all of whom had normal coronaries with p<0.001. Conclusions: At a single quaternary care academic center the majority of coronary angiographies performed invasively are appropriate by AUC. Despite adherence to AUC, there continues to be a large number of patients with no evidence of obstructive disease, including in those with ACS. Further research is needed to further refine the AUC and its role in risk stratification for obstructive CAD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document