Key result
Among 351 patients with undifferentiated chest pain and a very low probability of coronary artery disease, 24 were subsequently diagnosed with an unspecified condition.
Why the study?
Does omitting non-invasive testing in patients with very low probability of CAD align with clinical outcomes?
Does omitting non-invasive testing in patients with very low probability of CAD align with clinical outcomes?
The commentary supports NICE and ESC guidelines recommending against non-invasive testing in patients with very low probability of CAD.
May support omitting testing in very low-probability CAD per guidelines; leaves open need for prospective validation.
The paper by Patterson et al 1 illustrates why the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and ESC guidelines2 ,3 recommend no non-invasive testing in patients presenting with undifferentiated chest pain in whom a non-cardiac cause is suspected or the probability of coronary artery disease (CAD) is judged to be very low (NICE <10%, ESC <15%). Table 5 shows there were 351 such patients, of whom 24 were subsequently diagnosed with …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam Timmis (2015) conducted a letter in Undifferentiated chest pain (n=351). Non-invasive testing was evaluated. Among 351 patients with undifferentiated chest pain and a very low probability of coronary artery disease, 24 were subsequently diagnosed with an unspecified condition.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: