Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Simone van den Bulk, Amy Manten, Tobias N Bonten, Ralf E Harskamp
Author Information
  1. Simone van den Bulk: Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands s.van_den_bulk@lumc.nl.
  2. Amy Manten: Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Tobias N Bonten: Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  4. Ralf E Harskamp: Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Chest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.
RESULTS: Of the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.
CONCLUSION: Clinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.

Keywords

References

  1. BJGP Open. 2018 Nov 28;2(4):bjgpopen18X101619 [PMID: 30723804]
  2. Fam Pract. 2011 Jun;28(3):323-8 [PMID: 21239470]
  3. Croat Med J. 2015 Oct;56(5):422-30 [PMID: 26526879]
  4. Ann Fam Med. 2019 Jul;17(4):296-303 [PMID: 31285206]
  5. JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396 [PMID: 29362800]
  6. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 [PMID: 22007046]
  7. BMJ. 2016 Jun 22;353:i3139 [PMID: 27334281]
  8. BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 24;11(2):e046024 [PMID: 33627355]
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;81:120-128 [PMID: 27773828]
  10. Eur Heart J. 1995 Mar;16(3):325-32 [PMID: 7789374]
  11. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Jun 03;8:210 [PMID: 26036786]
  12. Open Heart. 2020 Jul;7(2): [PMID: 32719074]
  13. Neth Heart J. 2008 Jun;16(6):191-6 [PMID: 18665203]
  14. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Aug;38(8):1616-1620 [PMID: 31699426]
  15. Neth Heart J. 2021 Jun;29(6):338-347 [PMID: 33405015]
  16. Int J Family Med. 2013;2013:532093 [PMID: 23365746]
  17. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Jul 1;166(3):752-4 [PMID: 23084108]
  18. Int J Cardiol. 2006 Mar 8;107(3):369-75 [PMID: 15964644]
  19. BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 8;11(12):e045387 [PMID: 34880006]
  20. Eur Heart J. 1996 Jan;17(1):89-95 [PMID: 8682136]
  21. CMAJ. 2010 Sep 7;182(12):1295-300 [PMID: 20603345]
  22. Front Res Metr Anal. 2021 May 28;6:685591 [PMID: 34124534]
  23. BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 8;13(6):e071822 [PMID: 37290947]
  24. BMC Fam Pract. 2011 Mar 24;12:12 [PMID: 21435203]
  25. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 27;9(2):e027081 [PMID: 30819715]
  26. BMC Med. 2010 Jan 21;8:9 [PMID: 20092615]
  27. Neth Heart J. 2023 Apr;31(4):157-165 [PMID: 36580267]
  28. Eur Heart J. 2023 Oct 12;44(38):3720-3826 [PMID: 37622654]
  29. BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 5;12(10):e064402 [PMID: 36198462]
  30. Heart. 2017 Nov;103(21):1727-1732 [PMID: 28634285]
  31. BJGP Open. 2019 Oct 29;3(3): [PMID: 31581111]

MeSH Term

Humans
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Primary Health Care
Chest Pain
Risk Assessment
Troponin
Biomarkers
Clinical Decision Rules
Sensitivity and Specificity

Chemicals

Troponin
Biomarkers

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0troponinstudiestoolsprimarycarepainriskstratificationacuteACSreviewchestwithoutdecisionrulesChestdiagnosticGPsrulecoronarysyndromesettingsclinicalCDRsranged0%NPVstrategiesusingshowedsensitivity100%PURPOSE:frequentlyposeschallengegeneralpractitionersUtilizingmighthelpmakeappropriatereferraldecisionsconductedsystematicevaluatingassaysaimsassessperformancerulingprovidecomprehensivecurrentevidenceMETHODS:searchedPubMedEmbasearticlesOctober92023concerningadultpatients[CDRs]and/orsinglebiomarkertestsusedidentifyeligiblecombinationactivelearningbackwardsnowballingappliedScreeningdataextractionqualityassessmentfollowingQualityAssessmentDiagnosticAccuracyStudies-2toolperformedindependently2researchersRESULTS:1204screened14includedfinalNinevalidated7differentSensitivities7597negativepredictivevalues824%997%NoneoutperformedunaidedjudgmentGP'sFivereportedmeasurementsStudieshigh-sensitivityhighestaccuracy833%988%CONCLUSION:ClinicaluseconventionalinsufficientrecommendedstandaloneHigh-sensitivitypromisinglimitedprospectivevalidationneededimplementationPainPrimaryCare:SystematicReviewRiskStratificationToolsRuleAcuteCoronarySyndromehealth

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)