Background/objective: Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation. We aimed to study the epidemiology of chest pain with respect to underlying aetiologies and to establish pre-work-up probabilities for the primary care setting. Methods: We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain, aged 35 years and older, attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and fi ndings of each patient and provided follow-up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided on the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Results: The prevalence of chest pain among all attending patients was 0.7%. The majority (55.9%) of patients were women. Mean age was 59 (35-93) years. Of these patients, 53.2% had chest pains at the time of consultation and 29.6% presented with acute (Ͻ 48 hours' duration) chest pain. Pain originating from the chest wall was diagnosed in 46.6% of all patients, stable ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in 11.1%, and psychogenic disorders in 9.5%; 3.6% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Conclusion:The study adds important information about the epidemiology of chest pain as a frequent reason for consulting primary care practitioners. We provide updated pre-work-up probabilities for IHD for each age and sex category.

Background: Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort). Results:The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3-5 points; negative result ≤ 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%-94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%-83.9%). Interpretation:The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care. AbstractPreviously published at www.cmaj.ca @@

BackgroundChest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.MethodsWe included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.ResultsWomen showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p = 0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p = 0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p = 0.01). For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men. In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.ConclusionsWe found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient's gender.

Diagnosing the aetiology of chest pain is challenging. There is still a lack of data on the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms for acute coronary events in low-prevalence settings. AimTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs in patients presenting to general practice with chest pain. Design of studyCross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard. SettingSeventy-four general practices in Germany. MethodThe study included 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. Data were reviewed by an independent reference panel, with coronary heart disease (CHD) and an indication for urgent hospital admission as reference conditions. Main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, predictive value, and odds ratio (OR) for non-trauma patients with a reference diagnosis. ResultsSeveral signs and symptoms showed strong associations with CHD, including known vascular disease (OR = 5.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.83 to 9.30), pain worse on exercise (OR = 4.27; 95% CI = 2.31 to 7.88), patient assumes cardiac origin of pain (OR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.53 to 6.60), cough present (OR = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.77), and pain reproducible on palpation (OR = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.56). For urgent hospital admission, effective criteria included pain radiating to the left arm (OR = 8.81; 95% CI = 2.58 to 30.05), known clinical vascular disease (OR = 7.50; 95% CI = 2.88 to 19.55), home visit requested (OR = 7.31; 95% CI = 2.27 to 23.57), and known heart failure (OR = 3.53; 95% CI = 1.14 to 10.96). ConclusionAlthough individual criteria were only moderately effective, in combination they can help to decide about further management of patients with chest pain in primary care.Keywords chest pain; medical history taking; myocardial ischaemia; primary health care; sensitivity and specificity.

AimTo determine the diagnostic value of single symptoms and signs for coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with chest pain.MethodsSearches of two electronic databases (EMBASE 1980 to March 2008, PubMed 1970 to May 2009) and hand searching in seven journals were conducted. Eligible studies recruited patients presenting with acute or chronic chest pain. The target disease was CHD, with no restrictions regarding case definitions, eg, stable CHD, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute myocardial infarction (MI), or major cardiac event (MCE). Diagnostic tests of interest were items of medical history and physical examination. Bivariate random effects model was used to derive summary estimates of positive (pLR) and negative likelihood ratios (nLR).ResultsWe included 172 studies providing data on the diagnostic value of 42 symptoms and signs. With respect to case definition of CHD, diagnostically most useful tests were history of CHD (pLR = 3.59), known MI (pLR = 3.21), typical angina (pLR = 2.35), history of diabetes mellitus (pLR = 2.16), exertional pain (pLR = 2.13), history of angina pectoris (nLR = 0.42), and male sex (nLR = 0.49) for diagnosing stable CHD; pain radiation to right arm/shoulder (pLR = 4.43) and palpitation (pLR = 0.47) for diagnosing MI; visceral pain (pLR = 2.05) for diagnosing ACS; and typical angina (pLR = 2.60) and pain reproducible by palpation (pLR = 0.13) for predicting MCE.ConclusionsWe comprehensively reported the accuracy of a broad spectrum of single symptoms and signs for diagnosing myocardial ischemia. Our results suggested that the accuracy of several symptoms and signs varied in the published studies according to the case definition of CHD.