Search

This first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low-risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high-sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Both the modified History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors and Troponin (HEART) score and the Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at low risk (<1%) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE)., Objectives: The authors sought to assess the comparative accuracy of the EDACS (original and simplified) and modified HEART risk scores when using cardiac troponin I (cTnI) cutoffs below the 99th percentile, and obtain precise MACE risk estimates., Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study of adult emergency department (ED) patients evaluated for possible ACS in an integrated health care system between 2013 and 2015. Negative predictive values for MACE (composite of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and all-cause mortality) were determined at 60 days. Reclassification analyses were used to assess the comparative accuracy of risk scores and lower cTnI cutoffs., Results: A total of 118,822 patients with possible ACS were included. The 3 risk scores' accuracies were optimized using the lower limit of cTnI quantitation (<0.02 ng/ml) to define low risk for 60-day MACE, with reclassification yields ranging between 3.4% and 3.9%, while maintaining similar negative predictive values (range 99.49% to 99.55%; p = 0.27). The original EDACS identified the largest proportion of patients as low risk (60.6%; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Among ED patients with possible ACS, the modified HEART score, original EDACS, and simplified EDACS all predicted a low risk of 60-day MACE with improved accuracy using a cTnI cutoff below the 99th percentile. The original EDACS identified the most low-risk patients, and thus may be the preferred risk score., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations., Methods: We analyzed video recordings from our Chest Pain Choice trial, a single center patient-level randomized trial in which emergency department patients with chest pain being considered for cardiac stress testing were randomized to shared decision-making or usual care. Patient-provider interactions were video recorded. We compared characteristics and outcomes by gender., Results: Of the 204 patients enrolled (101 decision aid; 103 usual care), 120 (58.8%) were female. Of the 75 providers evaluated, 20 (26.7%) were female. The mean (SD) pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome was lower in women [3.7% (2.2) vs 6.7% (4.4), P=.0002]. There was no gender effect on duration of discussion, clinician recommendations, OPTION scores, patient perceptions, or eventual patient dispositions. When the clinician and patient gender matched, OPTION scores were lower (interaction P=.002), and patients were less likely to find the information to be very helpful (interaction P=.10)., Conclusions: Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chest pain is the second most common reason patients visit emergency departments (EDs) and often results in very low-risk patients being admitted for prolonged observation and advanced cardiac testing. Shared decision-making, including educating patients regarding their 45-day risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and management options, might safely decrease healthcare utilization., Methods/design: This is a protocol for a multicenter practical patient-level randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, Chest Pain Choice (CPC), to a control group receiving usual care. Adults presenting to five geographically and ethnically diverse EDs who are being considered for admission for observation and advanced cardiac testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CPC on (1) patient knowledge regarding their 45-day risk for ACS and the available management options (primary outcome); (2) patient engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict patients experience related to feeling uninformed (decisional conflict); (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (6) the proportion of patients admitted for advanced cardiac testing; and (7) healthcare utilization. To assess these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of the patient-clinician discussion, administer a patient healthcare utilization diary, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up., Discussion: This multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in low-risk chest pain patients from a variety of geographically and ethnically diverse EDs., Trial Registration: NCT01969240.

Objective: Risk scores and accelerated diagnostic protocols can identify chest pain patients with low risk of major adverse cardiac event who could be discharged early from the ED, saving time and costs. We aimed to derive and validate a chest pain score and accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) that could safely increase the proportion of patients suitable for early discharge., Methods: Logistic regression identified statistical predictors for major adverse cardiac events in a derivation cohort. Statistical coefficients were converted to whole numbers to create a score. Clinician feedback was used to improve the clinical plausibility and the usability of the final score (Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score [EDACS]). EDACS was combined with electrocardiogram results and troponin results at 0 and 2 h to develop an ADP (EDACS-ADP). The score and EDACS-ADP were validated and tested for reproducibility in separate cohorts of patients., Results: In the derivation (n = 1974) and validation (n = 608) cohorts, the EDACS-ADP classified 42.2% (sensitivity 99.0%, specificity 49.9%) and 51.3% (sensitivity 100.0%, specificity 59.0%) as low risk of major adverse cardiac events, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for categorisation of patients as low risk was 0.87., Conclusion: The EDACS-ADP identified approximately half of the patients presenting to the ED with possible cardiac chest pain as having low risk of short-term major adverse cardiac events, with high sensitivity. This is a significant improvement on similar, previously reported protocols. The EDACS-ADP is reproducible and has the potential to make considerable cost reductions to health systems., (© 2014 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.)

Objectives: The authors previously derived a clinical decision rule (CDR) for chest radiography in patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) consisting of the absence of three predictors: history of congestive heart failure, history of smoking, and abnormalities on lung auscultation. The aim of the investigation was to prospectively validate and refine the CDR for chest radiography in an independent patient population., Methods: Patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS were prospectively enrolled from September 2008 to January 2010 at an academic emergency department (ED) with 73,000 annual patient visits. Physicians completed standardized data collection forms before ordering chest radiographs. Two investigators, blinded to the data collection forms, independently classified chest radiographs as "normal,""abnormal not requiring intervention," or "abnormal requiring intervention" (e.g., heart failure, infiltrates), based on review of the radiology report and medical record. Analyses included descriptive statistics, interrater reliability assessment (kappa), and recursive partitioning., Results: Of 1,159 visits for possible ACS in which chest radiography was obtained, mean (±SD) age was 60.3 (±15.6) years, and 51% were female. Twenty-four percent had a history of acute myocardial infarction, 10% congestive heart failure, and 11% atrial fibrillation. Sixty-nine (6.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7% to 7.5%) patients had a radiographic abnormality requiring intervention. The kappa statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97). The previously derived prediction rule (no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking, and no abnormalities on lung auscultation) was 78.3% sensitive (95% CI = 67.2% to 86.4%) and 45.1% specific (95% CI = 42.2% to 48.1%) and had a positive predictive value of 8.3% (95% CI = 6.4% to 10.7%) and a negative predictive value of 97.0% (95% CI = 95.2% to 98.2%). Due to suboptimal performance, the rule was refined. The refined rule (no shortness of breath, no history of smoking, no abnormalities on lung auscultation, and age < 55 years) was 100.0% sensitive (95% CI = 93.4% to 100.0%) and 11.5% specific (95% CI = 9.6% to 13.5%) and had a positive predictive value of 6.7% (95% CI = 5.3% to 8.4%) and a negative predictive value of 100.0% (95% CI = 96.3% to 100.0%)., Conclusions: Prospective validation of our previously derived CDR for clinically important chest radiographic abnormalities was not successful. Derivation of a refined rule identified all clinically important radiographic abnormalities, but was insufficiently specific. No CDR with adequate sensitivity and specificity could be found., (© 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Background: Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing., Methods and Results: The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group., Conclusions: Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

Study Objective: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain who are at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is resource intensive and may lead to false-positive test results and unnecessary downstream procedures. We seek to identify patients at low short-term risk for a cardiac event for whom additional ED investigations might be unnecessary., Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients older than 24 years and with a primary complaint of chest pain from 3 academic EDs. Physicians completed standardized data collection forms before diagnostic testing. The primary adjudicated outcome was acute myocardial infarction, revascularization, or death of cardiac or unknown cause within 30 days. We used recursive partitioning to derive the rule and validated the model with 5,000 bootstrap replications., Results: Of 2,718 patients enrolled, 336 (12%) experienced a cardiac event within 30 days (6% acute myocardial infarction, 10% revascularization, 0.2% death). We developed a rule consisting of the absence of 5 predictors: ischemic ECG changes not known to be old, history of coronary artery disease, pain typical for acute coronary syndrome, initial or 6-hour troponin level greater than the 99th percentile, and age greater than 50 years. Patients aged 40 years or younger required only a single troponin evaluation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval 97.2% to 100.0%) and 20.9% specific (95% confidence interval 16.9% to 24.9%) for a cardiac event within 30 days., Conclusion: This clinical prediction rule identifies ED chest pain patients at very low risk for a cardiac event who may be suitable for discharge. A prospective multicenter study is needed to validate the rule and determine its effect on practice., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to assess sex differences in clinical presentation, management and outcome in emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain, and to measure the association between female sex and coronary angiography within 30 days., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in an urban academic ED between Jul. 1, 2007, and Apr. 1, 2008. We enrolled patients over 24 years of age with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Results: Among the 970 included patients, 386 (39.8%) were female. Compared with men, women had a lower prevalence of known coronary artery disease (21.0% v. 34.2%, p < 0.001) and a lower frequency of typical pain (37.1% v. 45.7%, p = 0.01). Clinicians classified a greater proportion of women as having a low (< 10%) pretest probability for ACS (85.0% v. 76.4%, p = 0.001). Despite similar rates of electrocardiography, troponin T and stress testing between sexes, there was a lower rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (4.7% v. 8.4%, p = 0.03) and positive stress test results (4.4% v. 7.9%, p = 0.03) in women. Women were less frequently referred for coronary angiography (9.3% v. 18.9%, p < 0.001). The adjusted association between female sex and coronary angiography was not significant (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.10)., Conclusion: Women had a lower rate of AMI and a lower rate of positive stress test results despite similar rates of testing between sexes. Although women were less frequently referred for coronary angiography, these data suggest that sex differences in management were likely appropriate for the probability of disease.

Background: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use., Methods/design: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up., Discussion: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01077037.

Objectives: This study attempted to prospectively validate a modified Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score that classifies patients with either ST-segment deviation or cardiac troponin elevation as high risk. The objectives were to determine the ability of the modified score to risk-stratify emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and to identify patients safe for early discharge., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in an urban academic ED over a 9-month period. Patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain were enrolled. On-duty physicians completed standardized data collection forms prior to diagnostic testing. Cardiac troponin T-values of >99th percentile (> or =0.01 ng/mL) were considered elevated. The primary outcome was acute myocardial infarction (AMI), revascularization, or death within 30 days. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the risk scores was compared by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and comparing the area under the curve. The performance of the risk scores at potential decision thresholds was assessed by calculating the sensitivity and specificity at each potential cut-point., Results: The study enrolled 1,017 patients with the following characteristics: mean (+/-SD) age 59.3 (+/-13.8) years, 60.6% male, 17.9% with a history of diabetes, and 22.4% with a history of myocardial infarction. A total of 117 (11.5%) experienced a cardiac event within 30 days (6.6% AMI, 8.9% revascularization, 0.2% death of cardiac or unknown cause). The modified TIMI risk score outperformed the original with regard to overall diagnostic accuracy (area under the ROC curve = 0.83 vs. 0.79; p = 0.030; absolute difference 0.037; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.004 to 0.071). The specificity of the modified score was lower at all cut-points of >0. Sensitivity and specificity at potential decision thresholds were: >0 = sensitivity 96.6%, specificity 23.7%; >1 = sensitivity 91.5%, specificity 54.2%; and >2 = sensitivity 80.3%, specificity 73.4%. The lowest cut-point (TIMI/modified TIMI >0) was the only cut-point to predict cardiac events with sufficient sensitivity to consider early discharge. The sensitivity and specificity of the modified and original TIMI risk scores at this cut-point were identical., Conclusions: The modified TIMI risk score outperformed the original with regard to overall diagnostic accuracy. However, it had lower specificity at all cut-points of >0, suggesting suboptimal risk stratification in high-risk patients. It also lacked sufficient sensitivity and specificity to safely guide patient disposition. Both scores are insufficiently sensitive and specific to recommend as the sole means of determining disposition in ED chest pain patients.

Objective: We derived a clinical decision rule to determine which emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require chest radiography., Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS over a 6 month period. Emergency physicians completed standardized clinical assessments and ordered chest radiographs as appropriate. Two blinded investigators independently classified chest radiographs as "normal," "abnormal not requiring intervention" and "abnormal requiring intervention," based on review of the radiology report and the medical record. The primary outcome was abnormality of chest radiographs requiring acute intervention. Analyses included interrater reliability assessment (with kappa statistics), univariate analyses and recursive partitioning., Results: We enrolled 529 patients during the study period between Jul. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. Patients had a mean age of 59.9 years, 60.3% were male, 4.0% had a history of congestive heart failure and 21.9% had a history of acute myocardial infarction. Only 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1%-3.8%) of patients had radiographic abnormality of the chest requiring acute intervention. The kappa statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.95). We derived the following rule: patients can forgo chest radiography if they have no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking and no abnormalities on lung auscultation. The rule was 100% sensitive (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%) and 36.1% specific (95% CI 32.0%-40.4%)., Conclusion: This rule has potential to reduce health care costs and enhance ED patient flow. It requires validation in an independent patient population before introduction into clinical practice.

Objective: We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical prediction rules to exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the emergency department (ED) setting., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We contacted content experts to identify additional articles for review. Reference lists of included studies were hand searched. We selected articles for review based on the following criteria: 1) enrolled consecutive ED patients; 2) incorporated variables from the history or physical examination, electrocardiogram and cardiac biomarkers; 3) did not incorporate cardiac stress testing or coronary angiography into prediction rule; 4) based on original research; 5) prospectively derived or validated; 6) did not require use of a computer; and 7) reported sufficient data to construct a 2 x 2 contingency table. We assessed study quality and extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form., Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 7937 patients. None of the studies verified the prediction rule with a reference standard on all or a random sample of patients. Six studies did not report blinding prediction rule assessors to reference standard results, and vice versa. Three prediction rules were prospectively validated. Sensitivities and specificities ranged from 94% to 100% and 13% to 57%, and positive and negative likelihood ratios from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.01 to 0.17, respectively., Conclusion: Current prediction rules for ACS have substantial methodological limitations and have not been successfully implemented in the clinical setting. Future methodologically sound studies are needed to guide clinical practice.

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities (P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]