Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.
van den Bulk, Simone; Manten, Amy; Bonten, Tobias N; Harskamp, Ralf E.
Afiliación
  • van den Bulk S; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands s.van_den_bulk@lumc.nl.
  • Manten A; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Bonten TN; Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Harskamp RE; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Departments of General Practice and Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ann Fam Med ; 22(5): 426-436, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39313342
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Atención Primaria de Salud / Troponina / Dolor en el Pecho / Biomarcadores / Síndrome Coronario Agudo Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Ann Fam Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE FAMILIA E COMUNIDADE Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Atención Primaria de Salud / Troponina / Dolor en el Pecho / Biomarcadores / Síndrome Coronario Agudo Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Ann Fam Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA DE FAMILIA E COMUNIDADE Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos