Why the study?
Should the terms 'typical' and 'atypical' symptoms for acute coronary syndrome be retired to improve diagnostic equity between men and women?
Should the terms 'typical' and 'atypical' symptoms for acute coronary syndrome be retired to improve diagnostic equity between men and women?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retiring the terms 'typical' and 'atypical' for ACS symptoms may help prevent delayed diagnosis and treatment in women.
Studies indicate that symptoms labeled as “atypical” are more common in women evaluated for myocardial infarction (MI) and may contribute to the lower likelihood of a diagnosis and delayed treatment and result in poorer outcomes compared with men with MI. Atypical pain is frequently defined as epigastric or back pain or pain that is described as burning, stabbing, or characteristic of indigestion. Typical symptoms usually include chest, arm, or jaw pain described as dull, heavy, tight, or crushing. In a recent article published in the Journal of the American Heart Association ( JAHA ), Ferry and colleagues addressed presenting symptoms in men and women diagnosed with MI and reported that typical symptoms in women were more predictive of a diagnosis of MI than for men. A critical question is, are there really typical or atypical symptoms, and if so, who is the reference group? We propose that researchers and clinicians either discontinue using the terms typical and atypical or provide the reference group to which the terms apply (eg, men versus women). We believe it is past time to standardize the symptom assessment for MI so that proper and rapid diagnostic testing can be undertaken; however, we cannot standardize the symptom experience. When we do this, we are at risk of having study results, such as those of Ferry and colleagues, that vary from prior evidence and could lead to what the authors hope to avoid: disadvantaging women in receiving expeditious diagnostic testing and treatment for acute coronary syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeVon et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: