Upload
liliana-hopkins
View
221
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation of Chest Pain
William Norcross, M.D.
Evaluation of Chest Pain
• Dictum: • With any chief complaint or symptom complex, first rule-
out (R/O) life threats. • The stopping point in the R/O should be at the point of
your conviction and personal satisfaction that the life threat does not exist.
• The R.O process may be very short and simple, e.g. a directed histroy, but if you're not convinced that the life threat is absent, pursue the R/O as far as necessary.
Chest Pain is very common.
• > 40 recognized entities in differential diagnosis• Life threat (practical)
• Acute coronary syndromes (ACS)• Aortic dissection• Pulmonary embolus (PE)• Pneumothorax• Pneumonia
• Obscure• Boerhave’s Syndrome• Usually are discovered in W/U of above.
Life-Threat Ruled Out
• Other entities• Musculoskeletal/serosal problems
• e.g. costochondritis, intercostal muscle spasms/strain, pericarditis, pleurisy
• Treat with NSAID, opiates, acetaminophen, local measures
• GI pathology • Dyspepsia, GE reflux esophageal spasm• Some bad abdominal pathology presents as chest pain
– e.g. perfodrated viscous, pancreatitis, cholecystitis– Usually apparent by H&P
• Treat with antacids, antispsmodics, etc.
Approach to Non-Life Threats
• Less urgent• Trial & error approach• Evaluation
• H&P, ancillary tests (CRX, EKG, perhaps dimers and cardiac markers)
Approach to Non-Life Threats
• Pneumonia, pneumothorax easy to diagnose• Note: the diagnostic modality for tension pneumothorax is an
intracostal needle, not a CXR.
• ACS, PE, aortic dissection: all easy to diagnose if you do the work-up
• Triggered by suspicions raised by initial evaluation and R/O life threat
Bad things to miss
• High mortality out-of-hospital (if undiagnosed)
Pulmonary Embolism
• Physical exam: tachycardia, tachypnea, sats, R heart findings, leg findings
• Ancillary - EKG, CXR, nonspecific d-dimer is usually (sensitivity > 85%)
• Assign likelihood of PE (low, high, intermediate) based on clinical gestalt or grading scales (e.g. Well’s Criteria)• If low probability and d-dimer is , quit (probably)• If intermediate or high, or if low with d-dimer, further study
(V/Q, CT angio, perhaps dopplers)
Aortic dissection
• History triggers; sudden,radiation, ripping/tearing• Risk factors: HTN, Marfan’s, coarctation, aortic valve
replacement, bicuspid aorta• PE:
• Severe pain, distress (usually), pulses, BP differential, AI murmur, neuro deficits
• All are insensitive markers, varied specificity• Ancillary data
• CXR: usually abn (90%) wide mediastinum, abn aorta; non-specific, 10% “normal”
• EKG: may show ST segment elevation
Acute Coronary Syndrome
• Most important due to commonality as well as lethality
• Top of differential, first inquiry• ‘ACS’ against the field of everything else
ACS
• History: Full historyOnly 4 things are truly predictive of ACS
1. Presence of chest pain2. Chest pain as chief complaint3. Radiation to shoulder(s)4. History of previous MI
• Risk factors (traditional) are not predictive in ED setting
ACS• PE: full physical
• Only 4 things predictive:1. Hypotension2. Diaphoresis3. Rales4. S3
• Markers• CKMB | troponin : sensitivity < 50% at 6 hrs• Neg markers with unstable angina and often initially neg
with MI• Neg first set mandates at lest on additional set
ACS: EKG
• Diagnostic of MI (1 mm elevation ST segments in anatomically contiguous leads) about 50% of the time.
• Non-diagnostic (usually non-specific ST/T waves) in around 50% MI.
• Normal 5 - 10% MI• If ST as above there is 80% likelihood of AMI• If new ST 1 mm with inverted T in anatomically
contiguouse leads, 20% chance of AMI, 20 -- 50% change unstable angina (UA).
• If old ST changes as above and acute chest pain, 5% chance AMI and 20 - 50% UA.
Acute Coronary Syndrome
• If ACS is Ruled In (with EKG or markers) treat and admit.
• If not, then:• If strong suspicion, teat, admit, further R/O• If convinced not ACS (or other potentially serious
problem) -• treat symptoms, outpatient manage
• If unsure - • treat, admit, further R/O
ACS
• Approached with clinical gestalt. • More objective decision aids available (ACI - TIPI).• Clinical sensitivity of either approach, > 95%.• Not good enough: the 5% (approximate) do badly.
• If in doubt, assume the worst, treat and admit for further evaluation.
References
1. Evaluation of the Patient with Acute Chest Pain. Lee. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1187-1195.2. Missed Diagnosis of Acute Cardiac Ischemia in the Emergency Department. Pope and others. N
Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1163-70. Editorial N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1207-1209.3. Is this Patient Having a Myocardial Infarction? Panju and others. JAMA 1998;280:1256-63.4. Prediction of the need for intensive care inpatients who came to Emergency Departments with
acute chest pain Goldman and others. N Engl J Med 1996; 334:1498-1504.5. ST-segment Elevation in Conditions other than Acute Myocardial Infarction. Wang and others. N
Engl J Med 2003; 349:2128-2135.6. Triage of patients with Acute Chest Pain and Possible Cardiac Ischemia: The Elusive Search for
Diagnostic Perfection. Goldman and others. Ann Int Med 2003; 139: 987-995.7. Comprehensive strategy for the evaluation and triage of the chest pain patient. Tatum. Ann Emerg
Med 1997;29:116-125.8. A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with chest
pain. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:797-803.9. Prognostic Importance of the Physical Examination for heart failure in non ST elevation Acute
Coronary Syndromes: The Enduring value of Killilp Classification. JAMA 2003; 290: 2174.10. Use of the Acute Cardian Ischemia Time Insensitive Predictive Instrument (ACI-TIPT) to assist with
Triage of Patients with Chest Pain. Selker. Ann Int Med 1998; 129:845-855.11. Impact of a Clinical Decision Role on Hospital Triage of Patients with suspected Cardiac Ischemia in
the Emergency Department. Reilly and others. JAMA 2002; 288:342-350.