PubMed2001
There are between 3 and 5 million visits to EDs each year for complaints of chest pain. Of these, about one half of the patients have a noncardiac cause for their chest pain. Of the remainder, about 30% to 50% have significant coronary disease. It is quite clear that patients who are at high risk for a coronary event should be admitted to the hospital. For the low-to-moderate risk patients, the decision to admit or discharge the patient from the ED is not quite so easy. The emergency physician has to decide which tests can be helpful in the decision-making process, this can be undertaken in conjunction with a consultative cardiologist. It can be argued that if a patient does not have a normal test result whichever that evaluatory test is), then the patient should be admitted for further work-up and evaluation. The easiest test to perform in the ED setting is an echocardiogram. The images can be sent by telecommunication to a qualified echocardiogram reader for interpretation. This also has a reasonable NPV, although not necessarily as good as some of the other modalities available, unless interpreted in light of cardiac enzyme test results. If the index of suspicion is still high, then a stress echocardiogram can be considered. This has an excellent NPV and can be easily performed in [table: see text] most patients. This should not be undertaken in the face of an evolving MI, and patients should be observed for at least 8 hours after their initial presentation to the ED prior to undergoing a provocative test. Nuclear scintigraphy, another modality available for cardiac risk stratification, can be a logistical nightmare. The nuclear isotopes are strictly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The emergency physician may inject the isotopes, provided that he or she has undergone the necessary radiation training. Also, the patient must be removed from the ED to a radioisotope-approved area for the duration of the scan. One of the most difficult questions left open after review of all these analytical modalities is the duration of time these test results remain valid; when does an individual patient need to be reevaluated as to their specific pretest probability? The answer to this question lies in the presenting clinical scenario. If the patient presents with a similar inciting trigger for his or her symptoms, and the cardiac risk profile has not changed appreciably, then the previous study (whether a provocative stress test or even a cardiac catheterization) probably can be reliably counted. If the patient's risk profile has changed or the symptoms are new or more intense, the physician is compelled to pursue this encounter as a new, acute event. This can be true even in the setting of a previous cardiac catheterization that showed nonobstructive coronary disease, because plaque rupture can be acute and unpredictable. Ultimately, optimal care calls for each institution to develop a specific approach, in conjunction with their consultative cardiologist or critical care specialist, to enhance patient care, safety, and diagnostic outcome, while maintaining cost efficiency.