Why the study?
Due to a lack of data on key issues, significant gaps remain that impede the practical use of the new European Society of Cardiology diagnostic algorithm for suspected chronic coronary syndrome.
The new ESC diagnostic algorithm for suspected chronic coronary syndrome has significant evidence gaps that may impede its practical application, requiring adaptation for specific regional contexts.
May reduce unnecessary testing in suspected CAD; leaves open prospective validation of revised pre-test probability.
In the new recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology for Chronic Coronary Syndrome, a new diagnostic algorithm is proposed in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The purpose of this algorithm was to propose a solution of the accumulated problems in the diagnosis of CAD, in particular, a high frequency of negative non-invasive tests and unchanged coronary arteries during invasive coronary angiography. The new diagnostic algorithm includes a revision of the pre-test probability scale, the introduction of the concept of clinical probability, clarifies the role of various non-invasive tests with the central role of non-invasive testing for myocardial ischemia. However, due to the lack of data on a number of key issues, significant gaps remain that impede the use of this algorithm in practice. This review is devoted to the consideration of problematic issues of the proposed algorithm, while a critical analysis of the algorithm itself and an assessment of recent publications are carried out. Various aspects of the application of a new scale for assessing pre-test probability, determining the clinical probability of CAD, the choice of non-invasive and invasive diagnostic tests, the place of the load electrocardiography test in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease are examined in detail. Gaps in the evidence base and limitations of the algorithm are considered, as well as the possibility of its use in Russian conditions. This review can help in adapting new recommendations to domestic conditions, as well as help practitioners to use it in their daily work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
А. Н. Сумин (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: