This review highlights the high prevalence of non-cardiac chest pain and emphasizes the need for positive management strategies that address underlying psychological processes rather than solely focusing on excluding coronary disease.
May prompt earlier non-cardiac evaluation in chest pain clinics; leaves open optimal psychological management strategies.
### Learning objectives Chest pain is common and usually non-cardiac in origin. The lifetime population prevalence of non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP) is approximately 20–33%1–7 compared with approximately 6–7% for angina.3 ,8 The incidence of NCCP depends on the clinical setting. It is 70–80% for patients presenting to a general practitioner or a rapid access chest pain clinic9–11 and around 50% attending emergency departments.12 ,13 Normal coronary anatomy is found in 40% having diagnostic coronary angiography.14 Despite this, the focus of clinical care is on excluding coronary disease rather than on the positive management of NCCP. As a result, patients with NCCP are often left with chronic symptoms, high levels of psychological distress,15 ,16 high unemployment and heavy use of healthcare resources.17–19 The causation may be complex with an interaction of organic and psychological processes. However, treatment can be effectively delivered at low cost.20 ,21 This article describes the causes, natural history and management of NCCP with an emphasis on the psychological processes which inform our approach to care. Chest pain may be obviously benign, for example after straining a muscle or being hit in the chest by a football. It only becomes of medical concern when the person seeks advice for one or more reasons: severe or recurrent pain; a family history of coronary disease; health anxiety as a result of personality or induced by societal concerns, for example, healthcare advertisements. The general practitioner may be confident to reassure the person without tests. However, someone referred to a cardiac outpatient or …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chambers et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: