AHA/ACC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/ SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain:

Circulation

AHA/ACC CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/ SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Writing Committee Members*

Martha Gulati, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA, Chair†; Phillip D. Levy, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA, Vice Chair†;

Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA, Vice Chair†; Ezra Amsterdam, MD, FACC†; Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA†; Kim K. Birtcher, MS, PharmD, AACC‡; Ron Blankstein, MD, FACC, MSCCT§; Jack Boyd, MD†;

Renee P. Bullock-Palmer, MD, FACC, FAHA, FASE, FSCCT†; Theresa Conejo, RN, BSN, FAHA‖; Deborah B. Diercks, MD, MSc, FACC¶; Federico Gentile, MD, FACC#; John P. Greenwood, MBChB, PhD, FSCMR, FACC**; Erik P. Hess, MD, MSc†;

Steven M. Hollenberg, MD, FACC, FAHA, FCCP††; Wael A. Jaber, MD, FACC, FASE‡‡; Hani Jneid, MD, FACC, FAHA§§; José A. Joglar, MD, FAHA, FACC‡; David A. Morrow, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA†; Robert E. O’Connor, MD, MPH, FAHA†; Michael A. Ross, MD, FACC†; Leslee J. Shaw, PhD, FACC, FAHA, MSCCT†

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence- based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Key Words: AHA Scientific Statements ◼ chest pain ◼ angina ◼ coronary artery disease ◼ acute coronary syndrome ◼ myocardial ischemia ◼ myocardial infarction ◼ myocardial injury, noncardiac ◼ accelerated diagnostic pathway ◼ clinical decision pathway ◼ sex differences ◼ troponins ◼ chest pain syndromes ◼ biomarkers ◼ shared decision-making ◼ noncardiac chest pain ◼ cardiac imaging

*Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry may apply; see Appendix 1 of the full guideline for detailed information. †ACC/AHA Representative. ‡ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Liaison. §Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Representative. ‖Lay Patient Representative. ¶Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Representative. #Former ACC/AHA Joint Committee member; current member during the writing effort. **Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Representative. ††American College of Chest Physicians Representative. ‡‡American Society of Echocardiography Representative. §§Task Force on Performance Measures, Liaison.

ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Members, see page e358.

The American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt DL, Birtcher KK, Blankstein R, Boyd

J, Bullock-Palmer RP, Conejo T, Diercks DB, Gentile F, Greenwood JP, Hess EP, Hollenberg SM, Jaber WA, Jneid H, Joglar JA, Morrow DA, O’Connor RE, Ross MA, Shaw LJ. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

© 2021 by the American Heart Association, Inc., and the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Circulation is available at http://www.ahajournals.org/journal/circ

e336 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

CONTENTS

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e336 Top 10 Take-Home Messages for the Evaluation

and Diagnosis of Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e337

1. Purpose of the Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . e339

1.1. Document Review and Approval . . . . . . . . e340

1.2. Class of Recommendations and

Level of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e340

1.3. Defining Chest Pain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e340

2. Initial Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e340

2.1. History .. ………………………… e340

2.1.1. A Focus on the Uniqueness of

Chest Pain in Women . . . . . . . . . . . e340

2.1.2. Considerations for Older

Patients With Chest Pain. . . . . . . . e341

2.1.3. Considerations for Diverse Patient Populations With Chest Pain . . . . e341 2.1.4. Patient-Centric Considerations . . e341

2.2. Physical Examination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e341

2.3. Diagnostic Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e341

2.3.1. Setting Considerations . . . . . . . . . . e341

2.3.2. Electrocardiogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e342

2.3.3. Chest Radiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . e343

2.3.4. Biomarkers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e343

3. Cardiac Testing General Considerations. . . . . . . e343

4. Choosing the Right Pathway With Patient-Centric Algorithms for Acute Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . .. . e343

4.1. Patients With Acute Chest Pain and

Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome

(Not Including STEMI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . e343

4.1.1. Low-Risk Patients With Acute

Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . e344

4.1.2. Intermediate-Risk Patients With

Acute Chest Pain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e344

4.1.3. High-Risk Patients With Acute

Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e348

4.1.4. Acute Chest Pain in Patients With

Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft

(CABG) Surgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e350

4.1.5. Evaluation of Patients With Acute

4.3.

Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Noncardiac Causes . . . . . . . . . e352

4.3.1. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain

With Suspected Gastrointestinal

Syndromes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e353

4.3.2. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain

With Suspected Anxiety and Other

Psychosomatic Considerations . . . . e353

4.3.3. Evaluation of Acute Chest

Pain in Patients With Sickle

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e337

.. .. . .. ..

e350 . e350 e350 e350 e351 e351 e351

3. Early Care for Acute Symptoms. Patients with acute chest pain or chest pain equivalent symptoms should seek medical care immediately by calling 9-1-1. Although most patients will not have a cardiac cause, the evaluation of all patients should focus on the early identification or exclusion of life-threatening causes.

5.

Cell Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e353 Evaluation of Patients With Stable

Chest Pain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e353

5.1. Patients With No Known CAD

Presenting With Stable Chest Pain . . . . . . e353

5.1.2. Low-Risk Patients With Stable

ChestPainandNoKnownCAD….e354

5.1.3. Intermediate-High Risk Patients

With Stable Chest Pain and

No Known CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e354

5.2. Patients With Known CAD Presenting

With Stable Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e354

5.2.1. Patients With Obstructive

CAD Who Present With Stable

Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e354

5.2.2. Patients With Known

Nonobstructive CAD Presenting

With Stable Chest Pain . . . . . . . . . e356

5.2.3. Patients With Suspected

Ischemia and No Obstructive

CAD (INOCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e357 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e359

TOP 10 TAKE-HOME MESSAGES FOR THE EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF CHEST PAIN

Chest Pain Receiving Dialysis . . . .

4.1.6. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain

in Patients With Cocaine and

Methamphetamine Use . . . . . . . . .

4.1.7. Shared Decision-Making in

Patients With Acute Chest Pain. . .

4.2. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With

Nonischemic Cardiac Pathologies . . . . . . .

4.2.1. Acute Chest Pain With Suspected

Acute Aortic Syndrome . . . . . . .

4.2.2. Acute Chest Pain With

Suspected Pulmonary Embolism .

4.2.3. Acute Chest Pain With

Suspected Myopericarditis . . . .

4.2.4. Acute Chest Pain With Valvular Heart Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. e350

1.

2.

Chest Pain Means More Than Pain in the Chest. Pain, pressure, tightness, or discomfort in the chest, shoulders, arms, neck, back, upper abdomen, or jaw, as well as shortness of breath and fatigue should all be considered anginal equivalents.

High-Sensitivity Troponins Preferred. High- sensitivity cardiac troponins are the preferred standard for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury.

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

4. Share the Decision-Making. Clinically stable patients presenting with chest pain should be included in decision-making; information about risk of adverse events, radiation exposure, costs, and alternative options should be provided to facilitate the discussion.

5. Testing Not Needed Routinely for Low-Risk Patients. For patients with acute or stable chest pain determined to be low risk, urgent diagnostic testing for suspected coronary artery disease is not needed.

6. Pathways. Clinical decision pathways for chest pain in the emergency department and outpatient settings should be used routinely.

7. Accompanying Symptoms. Chest pain is the dominant and most frequent symptom for both men and women ultimately diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome. Women may be more likely

to present with accompanying symptoms such as

nausea and shortness of breath.

8. Identify Patients Most Likely to Benefit

From Further Testing. Patients with acute or stable chest pain who are at intermediate risk or intermediate to high pre-test risk of obstructive coronary artery disease, respectively, will benefit the most from cardiac imaging and testing.

9. Noncardiac Is In. Atypical Is Out. “Noncardiac” should be used if heart disease is not suspected. “Atypical” is a misleading descriptor of chest pain, and its use is discouraged.

10. Structured Risk Assessment Should Be Used. For patients presenting with acute or stable chest pain, risk for coronary artery disease and adverse events should be estimated using evi- dence-based diagnostic protocols.

Figure 1 illustrates the take-home messages.

Figure 1. Take-Home Messages for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain

e338 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

1. PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The charge of the writing committee was to develop a guideline for the evaluation of acute or stable chest pain or other anginal equivalents, in a variety of clinical set- tings, with an emphasis on the diagnosis on ischemic causes.1 The guideline will not provide recommendations on whether revascularization is appropriate, or what mo- dality is indicated.1 Such recommendations can be found in the forthcoming American Heart Association (AHA)/ American College of Cardiology (ACC) coronary artery revascularization guideline.1a

After injuries, chest pain is the second most com- mon reason for adults to present to the emergency

department (ED) in the United States and accounts for >6.5 million visits, which is 4.7% of all ED visits.2 Chest pain also leads to nearly 4 million outpatient vis- its annually in the United States.3 Chest pain remains a diagnostic challenge in the ED and outpatient setting and requires thorough clinical evaluation. Although the cause of chest pain is often noncardiac, coronary artery disease (CAD) affects >18.2 million adults in the United States and remains the leading cause of death for men and women, accounting for >365000 deaths annually.4 Distinguishing between serious and benign causes of chest pain is imperative. The life- time prevalence of chest pain in the United States is 20% to 40%,5 and women experience this symptom more often than men.6 Of all ED patients with chest

Table 1. Applying ACC/AHA Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to Clinical Strategies, Interventions, Treatments, or Diagnostic Testing in Patient Care (Updated May 2019)*

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e339

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

pain, only 5.1% will have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and more than half will ultimately be found to have a noncardiac cause.7 Nonetheless, chest pain is the most common symptom of CAD in both men and women.

1.1. Document Review and Approval

This document was reviewed by 16 official reviewers nominated by the ACC, AHA, the American College of Emergency Physicians, American Society of Echocar- diography (ASE), American Society of Nuclear Cardi- ology (ASNC), American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM), Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomog- raphy (SCCT), and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR), and 39 individual content review- ers. Authors’ relationships with industry and other entities information is published in Appendix 1 of the full guide- line.1 Reviewers’ relationships with industry and other en- tities information is published in Appendix 2 of the full guideline.1

1.2. Class of Recommendations and Level of

Evidence

The Class of Recommendation (COR) indicates the strength of recommendation, encompassing the estimat- ed magnitude and certainty of benefit in proportion to risk. The Level of Evidence (LOE) rates the quality of sci- entific evidence supporting the intervention on the basis of the type, quantity, and consistency of data from clinical trials and other sources (Table 1).8

1.3. Defining Chest Pain

Figure 2 presents an index of suspicion that chest “pain” is ischemic in origin based on commonly used descriptors.

2. INITIAL EVALUATION

2.1. History

Figure 3 presents the top 10 causes of chest pain in ED based on age. Table 2 presents chest pain characteristics and corresponding causes.

2.1.1. A Focus on the Uniqueness of Chest Pain in Women

1. Women who present with chest pain are at risk for underdiagnosis, and potential cardiac causes should always be considered.11,12,14,16-19

Recommendations for Defining Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 1 and 2.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. An initial assessment of chest pain is recom- mended to triage patients effectively on the basis of the likelihood that symptoms may be attributable to myocardial ischemia.9-15

1

C-LD

2. Chest pain should not be described as atypical, because it is not helpful in determining the cause and can be misinterpreted as benign in nature. Instead, chest pain should be described as cardiac, possibly cardiac, or noncardiac because these terms are more specific to the potential underlying diagnosis.

Recommendation for History

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-LD

1. In patients with chest pain, a focused history that includes characteristics and duration of symptoms relative to presentation as well as associated features, and cardiovascular risk fac- tor assessment should be obtained.

Recommendations for a Focus on the Uniqueness of Chest Pain in Women Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 3 and 4.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1

B-NR

2. In women presenting with chest pain, it is rec- ommended to obtain a history that emphasizes accompanying symptoms that are more com- mon in women with ACS.11,12,14,16-19

e340 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

Figure 2. Index of Suspicion That Chest “Pain” Is Ischemic in Origin on the Basis of Commonly Used Descriptors

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 3. Top 10 Causes of Chest Pain in the ED Based on Age (Weighted Percentage) Created using data from Hsia RY, et al.7 ED indicates emergency department.

2.1.2. Considerations for Older Patients With Chest Pain

2.1.3. Considerations for Diverse Patient Populations With Chest Pain

2.2. Physical Examination

Table 3 presents physical examination in patients with chest pain.

2.3. Diagnostic Testing

2.3.1. Setting Considerations

Recommendation for Considerations for Older Patients With Chest Pain

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-LD

1. In patients with chest pain who are ≥75 years of age, ACS should be considered when accom- panying symptoms such as shortness of breath, syncope, or acute delirium are present, or when an unexplained fall has occurred.20

Recommendation for Physical Examination

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-EO

1. In patients presenting with chest pain, a focused cardiovascular examination should be performed initially to aid in the diagnosis of ACS or other potentially serious causes of chest pain (eg, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), or esopha- geal rupture) and to identify complications.

Recommendations for Considerations for Diverse Patient Populations With Chest Pain

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-LD

1. Cultural competency training is recommended to help achieve the best outcomes in patients of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds who pres- ent with chest pain.

1

C-LD

2. Among patients of diverse race and ethnicity presenting with chest pain in whom English may not be their primary language, addressing lan- guage barriers with the use of formal translation services is recommended.

Recommendations for Setting Considerations

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 5.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. Unless a noncardiac cause is evident, an ECG should be performed for patients seen in the office setting with stable chest pain; if an ECG is unavailable the patient should be referred to the ED so one can be obtained.27-31

1

C-LD

2. Patients with clinical evidence of ACS or other life-threatening causes of acute chest pain seen in the office setting should be transported urgently to the ED, ideally by EMS.27-35

1

C-LD

3. In all patients who present with acute chest pain regardless of the setting, an ECG should be acquired and reviewed for ST-segment–eleva- tion myocardial infarction (STEMI) within 10 minutes of arrival.27-29,32,33,36

2.1.4. Patient-Centric Considerations

Recommendation for Patient-Centric Considerations

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-LD

1. In patients with acute chest pain, it is recom- mended that 9-1-1 be activated by patients or bystanders to initiate transport to the closest ED by emergency medical services (EMS).21

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e341

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Table 3.

Physical Examination in Patients With Chest Pain

Diaphoresis, tachypnea, tachycardia, hypotension, crackles, S3, MR murmur22; examination may be nor- mal in uncomplicated cases

Tachycardia + dyspnea—>90% of patients; pain with inspiration23

Emesis, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax (20% patients), unilateral decreased or absent breath sounds

Fever, pleuritic chest pain, increased in supine posi- tion, friction rub

Fever, chest pain, heart failure, S3

Epigastric tenderness

Right upper quadrant tenderness, Murphy sign

Fever, localized chest pain, may be pleuritic, friction rub may be present, regional dullness to percussion, egophony

Dyspnea and pain on inspiration, unilateral absence of breath sounds

Tenderness of costochondral joints

Pain in dermatomal distribution, triggered by touch; char- acteristic rash (unilateral and dermatomal distribution)

Recommendations for Setting Considerations (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-LD

4. In all patients presenting to the ED with

acute chest pain and suspected ACS, cTn should be measured as soon as possible after presentation.34,35

3: Harm

C-LD

5. For patients with acute chest pain and sus- pected ACS initially evaluated in the office setting, delayed transfer to the ED for

cTn or other diagnostic testing should be avoided.

Clinical Syndrome

Findings

Emergency

Aortic dissection

Connective tissue disorders (eg, Marfan syndrome), extremity pulse differential (30% of patients, type A>B)24 Severe pain, abrupt onset + pulse differential + widened mediastinum on CXR >80% probability of dissection25 Frequency of syncope >10%24, AR 40%–75% (type A)26

2.3.2. Electrocardiogram

Figure 4 presents electrocardiographic-directed man- agement of chest pain.

Table 2. Chest Pain Characteristics and Corresponding Causes

Nature

Anginal symptoms are perceived as retrosternal chest discomfort (eg, pain, discomfort, heaviness, tightness, pressure, constriction, squeezing) (See Section 1.4.2, Defining Chest Pain, in the full guideline1).

Sharp chest pain that increases with inspiration and lying supine is unlikely related to ischemic heart disease (eg, these symptoms usually occur with acute pericarditis).

Onset and duration

Anginal symptoms gradually build in intensity over a few minutes.

Sudden onset of ripping chest pain (with radiation to the upper or lower back) is unlikely to be anginal and is suspicious of an acute aortic syn- drome.

Fleeting chest pain—of few seconds’ duration—is unlikely to be related to ischemic heart disease.

Location and radiation

Pain that can be localized to a very limited area and pain radiating to below the umbilicus or hip are unlikely related to myocardial ischemia.

Physical exercise or emotional stress are common triggers of anginal symp- toms.

Occurrence at rest or with minimal exertion associated with anginal symp- toms usually indicates ACS.

Positional chest pain is usually nonischemic (eg, musculoskeletal).

Relieving factors

Relief with nitroglycerin is not necessarily diagnostic of myocardial ischemia and should not be used as a diagnostic criterion.

Symptoms on the left or right side of the chest, stabbing, sharp pain, or discomfort in the throat or abdomen may occur in patients with diabetes, women, and elderly patients.

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome.

ACS

PE

Esophageal rupture

Pericarditis

Myocarditis

Esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, gall bladder disease

Pneumonia

Pneumothorax

Costochondritis, Tietze syndrome

Herpes zoster

Other

Noncoronary car- diac: AS, AR, HCM

AS: Characteristic systolic murmur, tardus or parvus carotid pulse

AR: Diastolic murmur at right of sternum, rapid carotid upstroke

HCM: Increased or displaced left ventricular impulse, prominent a wave in jugular venous pressure, systolic murmur

Severity

Ripping chest pain (“worse chest pain of my life”), especially when sudden in onset and occurring in a hypertensive patient, or with a known bicuspid aortic valve or aortic dilation, is suspicious of an acute aortic syndrome (eg, aortic dissection).

Precipitating factors

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; AR, aortic regurgitation; AS, aortic ste- nosis; CXR, chest x-ray; LR, likelihood ratio; HCM, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; MR, mitral regurgitation; PE, pulmonary embolism; and PUD, peptic ulcer disease.

Recommendations for Electrocardiogram

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 6.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-EO

1. In patients with chest pain in which an initial ECG is nondiagnostic, serial ECGs to detect potential ischemic changes should be per- formed, especially when clinical suspicion of ACS is high, symptoms are persistent, or the clinical condition deteriorates.33

1

C-EO

2. Patients with chest pain in whom the initial ECG is consistent with an ACS should be treated according to STEMI and non–ST-segment– elevation ACS guidelines.32,33

2a

B-NR

3. In patients with chest pain and intermediate- to-high clinical suspicion for ACS in whom the initial ECG is nondiagnostic, supplemental elec- trocardiographic leads V7 to V9 are reasonable to rule out posterior myocardial infarction (MI).37-39

Associated symptoms

Common symptoms associated with myocardial ischemia include, but are not limited to, dyspnea, palpitations, diaphoresis, lightheadedness, presyn- cope or syncope, upper abdominal pain, or heartburn unrelated to meals and nausea or vomiting.

e342 November 30, 2021

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

2.3.3. Chest Radiography

2.3.4. Biomarkers

Figure 4. Electrocardiographic- Directed Management of Chest Pain

ECG indicates electrocardiogram; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTE-ACS, non– ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome; and STEMI, ST-segment– elevation myocardial infarction.

3. CARDIAC TESTING GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

The approach outlined in this guideline focuses on selective use of testing, optimization of lower cost evalu- ations, reducing layered testing, and deferring or eliminat- ing testing when the diagnostic yield is low (Figure 5). Figure 6 display choosing the right diagnostic test. Table 4 presents contraindication by type of imaging modality.

4. CHOOSING THE RIGHT PATHWAY WITH

PATIENT-CENTRIC ALGORITHMS FOR

ACUTE CHEST PAIN

Figure 7 provides an overview of a patient-centric algo- rithm for acute chest pain.

4.1. Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome (Not Including STEMI)

Recommendation for Chest Radiography

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-EO

1. In patients presenting with acute chest pain,

a chest radiograph is useful to evaluate for other potential cardiac, pulmonary, and thoracic causes of symptoms.

Recommendations for Biomarkers

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 7.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. In patients presenting with acute chest pain, serial cTn I or T levels are useful to identify abnormal values and a rising or fall-

ing pattern indicative of acute myocardial injury.35,40-59

1

B-NR

2. In patients presenting with acute chest pain, high-sensitivity cTn is the preferred biomarker because it enables more rapid detection or exclusion of myocardial injury and increases diagnostic accuracy.35,56,60-63

1

C-EO

3. Clinicians should be familiar with the ana- lytical performance and the 99th percentile upper reference limit that defines myocar- dial injury for the cTn assay used at their institution.34,61

3: No benefit

B-NR

4. With availability of cTn, creatine kinase myo- cardial (CK-MB) isoenzyme and myoglobin are not useful for diagnosis of acute myocardial injury.64-69

Recommendations for Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Suspected ACS (Not Including STEMI)

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 8 and 9.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. In patients presenting with acute chest pain

and suspected ACS, clinical decision pathways (CDPs) should categorize patients into low-, inter- mediate-, and high-risk strata to facilitate disposi- tion and subsequent diagnostic evaluation.40-52,76

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e343

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 5. Chest Pain and Cardiac Testing Considerations

The choice of imaging depends on the clinical question of importance, to either a) ascertain the diagnosis of CAD and define coronary anatomy or b) assess ischemia severity among patients with an expected higher likelihood of ischemia with an abnormal resting ECG or those incapable of performing maximal exercise.

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; CAC, coronary artery calcium; CAD, coronary artery disease; and ECG, electrocardiogram.

to estimate a patient’s probability of ACS or risk of 30- day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).90-95 The warranty period of prior cardiac testing should be considered, when symptoms are unchanged (Table 6). Low-risk chest pain has been defined in Table 7.

4.1.1. Low-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain

Recommendations for Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Suspected ACS (Not Including STEMI) (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

2. In the evaluation of patients presenting with acute chest pain and suspected ACS for whom serial troponins are indicated to exclude myo- cardial injury, recommended time intervals after the initial troponin sample collection (time zero) for repeat measurements are: 1 to 3 hours for high-sensitivity troponin and 3 to 6 hours for conventional troponin assays.35,56,77

1

C-LD

3. To standardize the detection and differentiation of myocardial injury in patients presenting with acute chest pain and suspected ACS, institutions should implement a CDP that includes a protocol for tro- ponin sampling based on their particular assay.78,79

1

C-LD

2a

B-NR

5. For patients with acute chest pain, a normal ECG, and symptoms suggestive of ACS that began at least 3 hours before ED arrival, a sin- gle hs-cTn concentration that is below the limit of detection on initial measurement (time zero) is reasonable to exclude myocardial injury.51,85-89

Recommendations for Low-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 10 and 11.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. Patients with acute chest pain and a 30-day

risk of death or major adverse cardiovascular

events (MACE) <1% should be designated as low risk.34,41,45,49,51,52,54,55,57,85,103

2a

B-R

2. In patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS who are deemed low-risk (<1% 30-day risk of death or MACE), it is reasonable to

discharge home without admission or urgent cardiac testing.60,94,97,104,105

4. In patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS, previous testing when available should be considered and incorporated into CDPs.80-84

Patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS cover a spectrum of disease likelihood and stratifica- tion into low- versus intermediate- or high-risk groups once STEMI has been excluded (Figure 8). Chest pain risk scores provide a summative assessment combining clinical information, such as age, ST-segment changes on ECG, symptoms, CAD risk factors, and cTn (Table 5)

4.1.2. Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 12 and 13.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-EO

1. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is recommended as a rapid, bedside test to estab- lish baseline ventricular and valvular function, evaluate for wall motion abnormalities, and to assess for pericardial effusion.

e344 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

4.1.2.1. Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain and No Known Coronary Artery Disease

Figure 9 presents an evaluation algorithm for pa- tients with suspected ACS at intermediate risk with no known CAD.

Figure 6. Choosing the Right Diagnostic Test

ASCVD indicates atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CAD, coronary artery disease; CAC, coronary artery calcium; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance; ETT, exercise tolerance test; LV, left ventricular; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; and SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography.

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

2a

A

2. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain, management in an observation unit is rea- sonable to shorten length of stay and lower cost relative to an inpatient admission.106-112

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e345

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Table 4. Contraindication by Type of Imaging Modality and Stress Protocol

Exercise ECG

Stress Nuclear70*

Stress Echocardiography71-73a

Stress CMR74

CCTA75*

Abnormal ST changes on resting ECG, digoxin, left bundle branch block, Wolff- Parkinson-White pattern, ven- tricular paced rhythm (unless test is performed to establish exercise capacity and not for diagnosis of ischemia)

Unable to achieve ≥5 METs or unsafe to exercise

High-risk unstable angina or AMI (<2 d) ie, active ACS

Uncontrolled heart failure

Significant cardiac arrhyth- mias (eg, VT, complete atrio- ventricular block) or high risk for arrhythmias caused by QT prolongation

Severe symptomatic aortic stenosis

Severe systemic arterial hypertension (eg, ≥200/110 mm Hg)

Acute illness (eg, acute PE, acute myocarditis/pericarditis, acute aortic dissection)

High-risk unstable angina, complicated ACS or AMI (<2 d)

Contraindications to vasodila- tor administration

Significant arrhythmias (eg, VT, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block) or sinus bradycardia <45 bpm

Significant hypotension (SBP <90 mm Hg)

Known or suspected bron- choconstrictive or broncho- spastic disease

Recent use of dipyridamole or dipyridamole-containing medications

Use of methylxanthines (eg, aminophylline, caffeine) within 12 h

Known hypersensitivity to adenosine, regadenoson

Severe systemic arterial hypertension (eg, ≥200/110 mm Hg)

Limited acoustic windows (eg, in COPD patients)

Inability to reach target heart rate

Uncontrolled heart failure

High-risk unstable angina, active ACS or AMI (<2 d)

Serious ventricular arrhythmia or high risk for arrhyth-

mias attributable to QT prolongation

Respiratory failure

Severe COPD, acute pulmo- nary emboli, severe pulmonary hypertension

Contraindications to dobuta- mine (if pharmacologic stress test needed)

Atrioventricular block, uncontrolled atrial fibrillation

Critical aortic stenosis†

Acute illness (eg, acute PE, acute myocarditis/ pericarditis, acute aortic dissection)

Hemodynamically sig- nificant LV outflow tract obstruction

Contraindications to atro- pine use:

Narrow-angle glaucoma

Myasthenia gravis

Obstructive uropathy

Obstructive gastrointesti- nal disorders

Severe systemic arterial hypertension (eg, ≥200/110 mm Hg)

Use of Contrast Contraindicated in:

Hypersensitivity to perflutren

Hypersensitivity to blood, blood products, or albumin (for Optison only)

Reduced GFR (<30 mL/ min/1.73 m2)

Contraindications to vasodila- tor administration

Implanted devices not safe for CMR or producing arti- fact limiting scan quality/ interpretation

Significant claustrophobia

Caffeine use within past 12 h

Allergy to iodinated contrast

Inability to cooperate with scan acquisition and/or breath-hold instructions

Clinical instability (eg, acute myocardial infarction, decompensated heart failure, severe hypotension)

Renal impairment as defined by local protocols

Contraindication to beta blockade in the presence of an elevated heart rate and no alternative medications available for achieving target heart rate

Heart rate variability and arrhythmia

Contraindication to nitroglycerin (if indicated)

For all the imaging modalities, inability to achieve high-quality images should be considered, in particular for obese patients

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; AS, aortic stenosis; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; CMR, cardio- vascular magnetic resonance imaging; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; LV, left ventricular; MET, metabolic equivalent; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PE, pulmonary embolism; SBP, systolic blood pressure; and VT, ventricular tachycardia.

*Screening for potential pregnancy by history and/or pregnancy testing should be performed according to the local imaging facilities policies for undertaking radio- logical examinations that involve ionizing radiation in women of child-bearing age.

†Low-dose dobutamine may be useful for assessing for low-gradient AS.

e346 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 7. Patient-Centric Algorithms for Acute Chest Pain

ECG indicates electrocardiogram; and STEMI, ST- segment–elevation myocardial infarction.

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With No Known CAD Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 14 and 15.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Index Diagnostic Testing

Anatomic Testing

1

A

1. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and no known CAD eligible for diagnostic testing after a negative or inconclusive evalu- ation for ACS, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is useful for exclusion

of atherosclerotic plaque and obstructive CAD.113-123

1

C-EO

2. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain, moderate-severe ischemia on cur- rent or prior (≤1 year) stress testing, and no known CAD established by prior anatomic testing, invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is recommended.

2a

C-LD

3. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain with evidence of previous mildly abnormal stress test results (≤1 year), CCTA

is reasonable for diagnosing obstructive CAD.124,125

Stress Testing

1

B-NR

4. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and no known CAD who are eligible for cardiac testing, either exercise ECG, stress echocardiography, stress positron emission tomography (PET)/single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), or stress CMR

is useful for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia.33,107,111,113,116,122,126-145

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With No Known CAD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Sequential or Add-on Diagnostic Testing

2a

B-NR

5. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and no known CAD, with a coronary artery stenosis of 40% to 90% in a proximal or middle coronary artery on CCTA, fractional flow reserve computed tomogra- phy (FFR-CT) can be useful for the diagnosis of ves- sel-specific ischemia and to guide decision-making regarding the use of coronary revascularization.146-152

2a

C-EO

6. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and no known CAD, as well as an incon- clusive prior stress test, CCTA can be useful for excluding the presence of atherosclerotic plaque and obstructive CAD.

2a

C-EO

7. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and no known CAD, with an inconclusive CCTA, stress imaging (with echocardiography, PET/SPECT MPI, or CMR) can be useful for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia.

4.1.2.2. Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Known Coronary Artery Disease

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Known CAD

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 16 and 17.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

A

1. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain who have known CAD and present with new onset or worsening symptoms, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) should be optimized before additional cardiac testing is performed.153,154

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e347

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 8. General Approach to

Risk Stratification of Patients With Suspected ACS

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; CDP, clinical decision pathway; and ECG, electrocardiogram.

4.1.3. High-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain

Recommendations for Intermediate-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Known CAD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

A

2. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain who have worsening frequency of symptoms with significant left main, proximal left anterior descending stenosis, or multivessel CAD on prior anatomic testing or history of prior coronary revas- cularization, ICA is recommended.113-115,119,155,156

2a

B-NR

3. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and known nonobstructive CAD, CCTA can be useful to determine progression of athero- sclerotic plaque and obstructive CAD.157-159

2a

B-NR

4. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and coronary artery stenosis of 40% to 90% in a proximal or middle segment on CCTA, FFR-CT is reasonable for diagnosis of vessel-specific isch- emia and to guide decision-making regarding the use of coronary revascularization.146,148,149,151,152,160

2a

B-NR

5. For intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain and known CAD who have new onset or worsening symptoms, stress imaging (PET/SPECT MPI, CMR, or stress echocardiography) is reasonable.120,126,129,142

Recommendations for High-Risk Patients With Acute Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 18 and 19.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Recommendations for High-Risk Patients, Including Those With High-Risk Findings on CCTA or Stress Testing

1

1

B-NR

1. For patients with acute chest pain and sus- pected ACS who have new ischemic changes on electrocardiography, troponin-confirmed acute myocardial injury, new-onset left ven- tricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <40%), newly diagnosed moderate-severe ischemia on stress testing, hemodynamic instability, and/or a high CDP risk score should

be designated as high risk for short-term MACE.161-163

C-EO

2a

B-NR

3. For high-risk patients with acute chest pain who are troponin positive in whom obstructive CAD has been excluded by CCTA or ICA, CMR or echocardiography can be effective in establishing alternative diagnoses.167-171

Figure 10 includes the evaluation algorithm for patients with known CAD, including patients with nonobstructive and obstructive CAD.

e348 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

2. For patients with acute chest pain and sus- pected ACS who are designated as high risk, ICA is recommended.33,164-166

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Table 5. Sample Clinical Decision Pathways Used to Define Risk

HEART Pathway91

EDACS96

ADAPT (mADAPT)97

NOTR94

2020 ESC/ hs-cTn*98,99

2016 ESC/ GRACE49,100

Target population

Suspected ACS

Suspected ACS, CP >5 min, planned se- rial troponin

Suspected ACS, CP >5 min, planned observation

Suspected ACS, ECG, troponin ordered

Suspected ACS, stable

Suspected ACS, planned serial troponin

Target outcome

↑ ED discharge without increasing missed 30-d or 1-y MACE

↑ ED discharge rate without in- creasing missed 30-d MACE

↑ ED discharge rate without increasing missed 30-d MACE

↑ Low-risk classification without increas- ing missed 30-d MACE

Early detection of AMI; 30-d MACE

Early detection of AMI

Patients with primary outcome in study popula- tion, %

Troponin

6–22

cTn, hs-cTn

12 15

hs-cTn cTn, hs-cTn

5–8 9.8

cTn, hs-cTn hs-cTn

10–17

cTn, hs-cTn

Variables used

History

ECG

Age

Risk factors Troponin (0, 3 h)

Age

Sex

Risk factors History Troponin (0, 2 h)

TIMI score 0-1

No ischemic ECG changes

Troponin (0, 2 h)

Age

Risk factors

Previous AMI or CAD

Troponin (0, 2 h)

History

ECG

hs-cTn (0, 1 or 2 h)

Age

HR, SBP

Serum Cr

Cardiac arrest ECG

Cardiac biomarker Killip class

Risk thresholds:

Low risk

HEART score ❤ Neg 0, 3-h cTn Neg 0, 2-h hs-cTn

EDACS score <16

Neg 0, 2 h hs-cTn

No ischemic ECG Δ

TIMI score 0 (or <1 for mADAPT)

Neg 0, 2-h cTn or hs-cTn

No ischemic ECG Δ

Age <50 y

❤ risk factors Previous AMI or CAD

Neg cTn or hs- cTn (0, 2 h)

Initial hs-cTn is “very low” and Sx onset >3 h ago

Or

Initial hs-cTn “low” and 1– or 2-h hs-cTn Δ

is “low”

Chest pain free, GRACE <140

Sx <6 h – hs-cTn <ULN (0, 3 h)

Sx >6 h – hs-cTn <ULN (arrival)

Intermediate risk

HEART score 4-6

NA

TIMI score 2-4

NA

Initial hs-cTn is between “low” and “high”

And/Or

1- or 2-h hs-cTn Δ is between low and high thresholds

T0 hs-cTn = 12–52 ng/L or

1-h Δ = 3–5 ng/L

High risk

HEART score 7-10101,102

NA

TIMI score 5-7102

NA

Initial hs-cTn is “high”

Or

1- or 2-h hs-cTn Δ is high

T0 hs-cTn >52 ng/L or Δ 1 h >5 ng/L

Performance

↑ ED discharges by 21% (40% versus 18%)

↓ 30-d objective testing by 12% (69% versus 57%)

↓ length of stay by 12 h (9.9 versus 21.9 h)

More patients identified as low risk versus ADAPT (42% versus 31%)

ADAPT: More dis- charged ≤6 h (19% versus 11%)

30-d MACE sen- sitivity =100%

28% eligible for ED discharge

AMI sensitivity >99%

62% Ruled out (0.2% 30-d MACE)

25% Observe 13% Rule in

AMI sensitivity >99%

30-d MACE not studied

AMI sensitivity, %

cTn accuracy: 30-d MACE sensitivity, %

hs-cTn accuracy: 30-d MACE sensitivity, %

ED discharge, %

100

100

95 40

100 100

100 100

92 93

49 19 (ADAPT) 39 (mADAPT)

100 >99

100 NA

99 99 28 —

96.7

NA

— —

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; ADAPT, Accelerated Diagnostic protocol to Assess chest Pain using Troponins;

equivalent; Cr, creatinine; cTn, cardiac troponin; hs-cTn, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin; ECG, electrocardiogram; ED, emergency department; EDACS, emergency department ACS; ESC, European Society of Cardiology; GRACE, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; HEART, history, ECG, age, risk factors, troponin; HR, heart rate; hs, high sensi- tivity; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; mADAPT, modified (including TIMI scores of 1) ADAPT; NA, not applicable; neg, negative; NICE, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; NOTR, No Objective Testing Rule; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SSACS, symptoms suggestive of ACS; Sx, symptoms; and ULN, upper limit of normal.

*The terms “very low,” “low,” “high,” “1 h Δ,” and “2 h Δ” refer to hs-cTn assay–specific thresholds published in the ESC guideline.98,99

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e349

AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CP, chest pain or

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Table 6.

Anatomic

Table 7.

Pain

T-0

T-0 and 1- or 2-h Delta

Warranty Period for Prior Cardiac Testing

Definition Used for Low-Risk Patients With Chest

T-0 hs-cTn below the assay limit of detection or “very low” threshold if symptoms present for at least 3 h

T-0 hs-cTn and 1- or 2-h delta are both below the assay “low” thresholds (>99% NPV for 30-d MACE)

Test Modality

Result

Warranty Period

Low Risk (<1% 30-d Risk for Death or MACE)

hs-cTn Based

Normal coronary angiogram CCTA with no stenosis or plaque

2 y

Stress testing

CCTA indicates coronary computed tomographic angiography.

4.1.4. Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery

Normal stress test (given adequate stress)

1 y

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Prior CABG Surgery

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-LD

1. In patients with prior CABG surgery present- ing with acute chest pain who do not have ACS, performing stress imaging is effective to evaluate for myocardial ischemia or CCTA for graft stenosis or occlusion.172-178

1

C-LD

2. In patients with prior CABG surgery present- ing with acute chest pain, who do not have ACS165,179-184 or who have an indeterminate/ nondiagnostic stress test, ICA is useful.179

Clinical Decision Pathway Based

HEART Pathway91

EDACS105

ADAPT90

mADAPT

NOTR94

HEART score ≤3, initial and serial cTn/hs-cTn < assay 99th percentile

EDACS score ≤16; initial and serial cTn/hs-cTn < assay 99th percentile

TIMI score 0, initial and serial cTn/hs-cTn < assay 99th percentile

TIMI score 0/1, initial and serial cTn/hs-cTn < assay 99th percentile

0 factors

4.1.5. Evaluation of Patients With Acute Chest Pain Receiving Dialysis

1. In patients who experience acute unremitting chest pain while undergoing dialysis, transfer by EMS to an acute care setting is recommended.185-189

4.1.6. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Cocaine and Methamphetamine Use

1. In patients presenting with acute chest pain, it is reasonable to consider cocaine and methamphet- amine use as a cause of their symptoms.190-192

4.1.7. Shared Decision-Making in Patients With Acute Chest Pain

ADAPT indicates 2-hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Access Patients with Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins as the Only Biomarkers; cTn, cardiac troponin; EDACS, Emergency Depart- ment Acute Coronary Syndrome; HEART Pathway, History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin; hs-cTn, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; mADAPT, modified 2-hour Acceler- ated Diagnostic Protocol to Access Patients with Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins as the Only Biomarkers; NOTR, No Objec- tive Testing Rule; NPV, negative predictive value; and TIMI, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction.

4.2. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Nonischemic Cardiac Pathologies

4.2.1. Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Acute Aortic Syndrome

Recommendation for Evaluation of Patients With Acute Chest Pain Receiving Dialysis

Referenced studies that support the recommendation are summarized in Online Data Supplement 20.

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

B-NR

Recommendation for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Nonischemic Cardiac Pathologies

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-EO

1. In patients with acute chest pain in whom other potentially life-threatening nonischemic cardiac conditions are suspected (eg, aortic pathology, pericardial effusion, endocarditis), TTE is recom- mended for diagnosis.

Recommendation for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Cocaine and Methamphetamine Use

Referenced studies that support the recommendation are summarized in Online Data Supplement 21.

COR

LOE

Recommendation

2a

B-NR

Recommendations for Shared Decision-Making in Patients With Acute Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 22.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-R

1. For patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS who are deemed low risk by a CDP, patient decision aids are beneficial to improve understand- ing and effectively facilitate risk communication.193,194

1

B-R

2. For patients with acute chest pain and suspected ACS who are deemed intermediate risk by a CDP, shared decision-making between the clinician and patient regarding the need for admission, for obser- vation, discharge, or further evaluation in an outpa- tient setting is recommended for improving patient understanding and reducing low-value testing.193,194

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Acute Aortic Syndrome

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-EO

1. In patients with acute chest pain where there is clinical concern for aortic dissec- tion, computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is recommended for diagnosis and treatment planning.

1

C-EO

2. In patients with acute chest pain where there is clinical concern for aortic dissec- tion, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or CMR should be performed to make the diagnosis if CT is contraindicated or unavailable.

e350 November 30, 2021

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 9. Evaluation Algorithm for Patients With Suspected ACS at Intermediate Risk With No Known CAD

Test choice should be guided by local availability and expertise.

*Recent negative test: normal CCTA ≤2 years (no plaque/no stenosis) OR negative stress test ≤1 year, given adequate stress. †High-risk CAD means left main stenosis ≥50%; anatomically significant 3-vessel disease (70% stenosis). ‡For FFR-CT, turnaround times may impact prompt clinical care decisions. However, the use of FFR-CT does not require additional testing, as would be the case when adding stress testing.

CAD indicates coronary artery disease; CCTA, coronary CT angiography; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; FFR-CT, fractional flow reserve with CT; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; ICA, invasive coronary angiography; INOCA, ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease; PET, positron emission tomography; and SPECT, single-photon emission CT.

4.2.2. Acute Chest Pain With Suspected PE

1. In stable patients with acute chest pain with high clinical suspicion for PE, CTA using a PE protocol is recommended.195-198

2. For patients with acute chest pain and possible PE, need for further testing should be guided by pretest probability.

4.2.3. Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Myopericarditis

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Myopericarditis (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

2. In patients with acute chest pain with suspected acute myopericarditis, CMR is useful if there is diagnostic uncertainty, or to determine the pres- ence and extent of myocardial and pericardial inflammation and fibrosis.202-207

1

C-EO

3. In patients with acute chest pain and suspected myopericarditis, TTE is effective to determine the presence of ventricular wall motion abnor- malities, pericardial effusion, valvular abnormali- ties, or restrictive physiology.

2b

C-LD

4. In patients with acute chest pain with suspected acute pericarditis, noncontrast or contrast cardiac CT scanning may be reasonable to determine the pres- ence and degree of pericardial thickening.202,203,208

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With Suspected PE Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 23.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1

C-EO

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Myopericarditis Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 24.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. In patients with acute chest pain and myocardial injury who have nonobstructive coronary arter- ies on anatomic testing, CMR with gadolinium contrast is effective to distinguish myopericar- ditis from other causes, including myocardial

infarction and nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).168,170,171,199-201

4.2.4. Acute Chest Pain With Valvular Heart Disease (VHD)

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With VHD

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-EO

1. In patients presenting with acute chest pain with suspected or known history of VHD, TTE is useful in determining the presence, severity, and cause of VHD.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e351

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 10. Evaluation Algorithm for Patients With Suspected ACS at Intermediate Risk With Known CAD

Test choice should be guided by local availability and expertise.

*Known CAD is prior MI, revascularization, known obstructive or nonobstructive CAD on invasive or CCTA. †If extensive plaque is present a high-quality CCTA is unlikely to be achieved, and stress testing is preferred. ‡Obstructive CAD includes prior coronary artery bypass graft/ percutaneous coronary intervention. §High-risk CAD means left main stenosis ≥50%; anatomically significant 3-vessel disease (≥70% stenosis). ‖FFR-CT turnaround times may impact prompt clinical care decisions.

ACS indicates acute coronary syndrome; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCTA, coronary CT angiography; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance; CT, computed tomography; FFR-CT, fractional flow reserve with CT; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; ICA, invasive coronary angiography; INOCA, ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease; PET, positron emission tomography; and SPECT, single-photon emission CT.

4.3. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Noncardiac Causes

Recommendations for Acute Chest Pain With VHD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-EO

2. In patients presenting with acute chest pain with suspected or known VHD in whom TTE diagnostic quality is inadequate, TEE (with 3D imaging if available) is useful in determining the severity and cause of VHD.

2a

C-EO

3. In patients presenting with acute chest pain with known or suspected VHD, CMR imaging is reasonable as an alternative to TTE and/or TEE is nondiagnostic.

Recommendation for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Noncardiac Causes

COR

LOE

Recommendation

1

C-EO

1. Patients with acute chest pain should be evalu- ated for noncardiac causes if they have persis- tent or recurring symptoms despite a negative stress test or anatomic cardiac evaluation, or a low-risk designation by a CDP.

e352 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Table 8. Differential Diagnosis of Noncardiac Chest Pain

Respiratory

Pulmonary embolism Pneumothorax/hemothorax Pneumomediastinum Pneumonia

Bronchitis

Pleural irritation

Malignancy

Gastrointestinal

Cholecystitis

Pancreatitis

Hiatal hernia

Gastroesophageal reflux disease/gastritis/esophagitis Peptic ulcer disease

Esophageal spasm

Dyspepsia

Chest wall

Costochondritis

Chest wall trauma or inflammation

Herpes zoster (shingles)

Cervical radiculopathy

Breast disease

Rib fracture

Musculoskeletal injury/spasm

Psychological

Panic disorder

Anxiety

Clinical depression

Somatization disorder

Hypochondria

Other

Hyperventilation syndrome

Carbon monoxide poisoning

Sarcoidosis

Lead poisoning

Prolapsed intervertebral disc

Thoracic outlet syndrome

Adverse effect of certain medications (eg, 5-fluorouracil) Sickle cell crisis

The differential diagnosis for noncardiac causes of acute chest pain is quite broad, and includes respiratory, mus-

culoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, and other causes (Table 8).

4.3.1. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Gastrointestinal Syndromes

4.3.2. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Anxiety and Other Psychosomatic Considerations

Recommendation for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Gastrointestinal Syndromes

COR

LOE

Recommendation

2a

C-LD

1. In patients with recurrent acute chest pain without evidence of a cardiac or pulmonary cause, evaluation for gastrointestinal causes is reasonable.

Recommendation for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain With Suspected Anxiety and Other Psychosomatic Considerations

Referenced studies that support the recommendation are summarized in Online Data Supplement 25.

COR

LOE

Recommendation

2a

B-R

1. For patients with recurrent, similar presentations for acute chest pain with no evidence of a phys- iological cause on prior diagnostic evaluation including a negative workup for myocardial isch- emia, referral to a cognitive-behavioral therapist is reasonable.209-222

4.3.3. Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease

1. In patients with sickle cell disease who report acute chest pain, emergency transfer by EMS to an acute care setting is recommended.223-227

2. In patients with sickle cell disease who report acute chest pain, ACS should be excluded.225-227

5. EVALUATION OF PATIENTS WITH STABLE CHEST PAIN

5.1. Patients With No Known CAD Presenting

With Stable Chest Pain

Stable chest pain is a symptom of myocardial ischemia characterized by chest pain that is provoked with stress (physical or emotional). Risk status in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) is not well defined. Figure 11 pro- vides a description of SIHD risk estimates.228

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e353

Recommendations for Evaluation of Acute Chest Pain in Patients With Sickle Cell Disease

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summa- rized in Online Data Supplement 26.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1

C-LD

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

5.1.2. Low-Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

Recommendations for Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Assessment of Left Ventricular Function

Recommendations

1

B-NR

6. In intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain who have pathological Q waves, symptoms or signs suggestive of heart failure, complex ventricu- lar arrhythmias, or a heart murmur with unclear diagnosis, use of TTE is effective for diagnosis

of resting left ventricular systolic and diastolic ventricular function and detection of myocardial, valvular, and pericardial abnormalities.249,250,285

Sequential or Add-on Testing: What to Do If Index Test Results Are Positive or Inconclusive

2a

B-NR

7. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and known coronary stenosis of 40% to 90% in a proximal or middle coronary seg- ment on CCTA, FFR-CT can be useful for diag- nosis of vessel-specific ischemia and to guide

decision-making regarding the use of coronary revascularization.146,148,149,160,286-288

2a

B-NR

8. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable

chest pain after an inconclusive or abnormal

exercise ECG or stress imaging study, CCTA is reasonable.84,154,242,289-291

2a

B-NR

2a

B-NR

2b

C-EO

Recommendations for Low-Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 27 and 28.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

B-NR

1. For patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD presenting to the outpatient clinic, a model to estimate pretest probability of obstructive CAD is effective to identify patients at low risk for obstructive CAD and favorable prognosis in whom additional diagnostic testing can be deferred.228-232

2a

B-R

2. For patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD categorized as low risk, CAC test- ing is reasonable as a first-line test for exclud- ing calcified plaque and identifying patients with a low likelihood of obstructive CAD.233-236

2a

B-NR

3. For patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD categorized as low risk, exercise testing without imaging is reasonable as a first- line test for excluding myocardial ischemia and determining functional capacity in patients with an interpretable ECG.237

5.1.3. Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

Figure 12 presents a CDP for patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD.

9. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD undergoing stress testing, the addition of CAC testing can be useful.235,292-297

10. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable

chest pain after inconclusive CCTA, stress imag- ing is reasonable.237,249,250,255-258,298-303

11. Forintermediate-highriskpatientswithstablechest pain after a negative stress test but with high clinical suspicion of CAD, CCTA or ICA may be reasonable.

5.2. Patients With Known CAD Presenting With Stable Chest Pain

1. For patients with obstructive CAD and stable chest pain, it is recommended to optimize GDMT.153,154,304

2. For patients with known nonobstructive CAD and stable chest pain, it is recommended to optimize preventive therapies.305,306

5.2.1. Patients With Obstructive CAD Who Present With Stable Chest Pain

Recommendations for Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 29 and 30.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Index Diagnostic Testing

Anatomic Testing

1

A

1. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD, CCTA is effec- tive for diagnosis of CAD, for risk stratification, and for guiding treatment decisions.160,238-248

Stress Testing

1

B-R

2. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD, stress imaging (stress echocardiography, PET/SPECT MPI or CMR) is effective for diagnosis of myocardial isch- emia and for estimating risk of MACE.124,245,249-270

2a

B-R

3. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD for whom rest/ stress nuclear MPI is selected, PET is reason- able in preference to SPECT, if available to improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease the rate of nondiagnostic test results.271-274

2a

B-R

4. For intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain and no known CAD with an inter- pretable ECG and ability to achieve maximal levels of exercise (≥5 metabolic equivalent

[MET]s), exercise electrocardiography is reasonable.181,237,245,249,251,275-278

2b

B-NR

5. In intermediate-high risk patients with stable chest pain selected for stress MPI using SPECT, the use of attenuation correction or prone imag- ing may be reasonable to decrease the rate of false-positive findings.279-284

Recommendations for Patients With Known CAD Presenting With Stable Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplement 31.

COR

1

LOE

Recommendations

A

1

C-EO

Recommendations for Patients With Obstructive CAD Who Present With Stable Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 32 and 33.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Index Diagnostic Testing

Anatomic Testing

1

A

1. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain despite GDMT and moderate- severe ischemia, ICA is recommended for guid- ing therapeutic decision-making.153,154,304,307

e354 November 30, 2021

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 11. Pretest Probabilities of Obstructive CAD in Symptomatic Patients According to Age, Sex, and Symptoms

Modified from Juarez-Orozco et al228 and Winther S et al.229 1) The pretest probability shown is for patients with anginal symptoms. Patients with lower-risk symptoms would be expected to have lower pretest probability.

2) The darker green– and orange-shaded regions denote the groups in which noninvasive testing is most beneficial (pretest probability >15%). The light green–shaded regions denote the groups with pretest probability of CAD ≤15% in which the testing for diagnosis may be considered based on clinical judgment.228 3) If CAC is available,

it can also be used to estimate the pretest probability based on CAC score.229 CAC indicates coronary artery calcium; and CAD, coronary artery disease.

Recommendations for Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Anatomic Testing (continued)

1

A

2. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain despite optimal GDMT, those referred for ICA without prior stress testing benefit from FFR or instantaneous wave free ratio.307-310

1

B-R

3. For symptomatic patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain with CCTA-defined ≥50% stenosis in the left main coronary artery, obstructive CAD with FFR with CT ≤0.80, or severe stenosis (≥70%) in all 3 main vessels, ICA is effec- tive for guiding therapeutic decision-making.154,165

2a

B-NR

4. For patients who have stable chest pain with previous coronary revascularization, CCTA is reasonable to evaluate bypass graft or stent patency (for stents ≥3 mm).288,311-314

Stress Testing

1

B-NR

5. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain despite optimal GDMT, stress PET/SPECT MPI, CMR, or echocardiography is recommended for diagnosis of myocardial ischemia, estimating risk of MACE, and guiding therapeutic decision-making.265,272,315-335

2a

B-R

6. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain despite optimal GDMT, when selected for rest/stress nuclear MPI, PET is reasonable in preference to SPECT, if available, to improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease the rate of nondiagnostic test results.261

2a

B-NR

7. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain despite GDMT, exercise treadmill test-

ing can be useful to determine if the symptoms are consistent with angina pectoris, assess the severity of symptoms, evaluate functional capacity and select management, including cardiac rehabilitation.154,336-338

Recommendations for Intermediate-High Risk Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Stress Testing (continued)

2a

B-NR

8. For patients with obstructive CAD who have stable chest pain symptoms undergoing stress PET MPI or stress CMR, the addition of myocardial blood flow reserve is useful to improve diagnosis accuracy and enhance risk stratification.272,331-335

Imaging should be considered in those with new onset or persistent stable chest pain (Figure 13).

5.2.1.1. Patients With Prior CABG Surgery With Stable Chest Pain

Recommendations for Patients With Prior CABG Surgery With Stable Chest Pain

COR

LOE

Recommendations

1

C-LD

1. In patients who have had prior CABG sur- gery presenting with stable chest pain

whose noninvasive stress test results show moderate-to-severe ischemia,165,179-184 or in those suspected to have myocardial ischemia with indeterminate/nondiagnostic stress test, ICA is recommended for guiding therapeutic decision-making.179

2a

C-LD

2. In patients who have had prior CABG surgery presenting with stable chest pain who are suspected to have myocardial ischemia, it is reasonable to perform stress imaging or CCTA to evaluate for myocardial ischemia or graft ste- nosis or occlusion.172-178,339

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e355

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 12. Clinical Decision Pathway for Patients With Stable Chest Pain and No Known CAD

Test choice should be guided by local availability and expertise.

*Test choice guided by patient’s exercise capacity, resting electrocardiographic abnormalities; CCTA preferable in those <65 years of age and not on optimal preventive therapies; stress testing favored in those ≥65 years of age (with a higher likelihood of ischemia). †High-risk CAD means left main stenosis ≥50%; anatomically significant 3-vessel disease (≥70% stenosis).

CAD indicates coronary artery disease; CCTA, coronary CT angiography; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; FFR-CT, fractional flow reserve with CT; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; INOCA, ischemia and no obstructive CAD; PET, positron emission tomography; and SPECT, single-photon emission CT.

Recommendations for Patients With Known Nonobstructive CAD Presenting With Stable Chest Pain (Continued)

COR

Anatomic Testing (continued)

LOE

Recommendations

2a

B-NR

Stress Testing

2a

C-LD

3. For patients with known extensive nonobstruc- tive CAD with stable chest pain symptoms, stress imaging (PET/SPECT, CMR, or echocar-

diography) is reasonable for the diagnosis of myocardial ischemia.272,328,331-334,344-347

5.2.2. Patients With Known Nonobstructive CAD Presenting With Stable Chest Pain

Recommendations for Patients With Known Nonobstructive CAD Presenting With Stable Chest Pain

Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 34 and 35.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

Index Diagnostic Testing

Anatomic Testing

2a

B-NR

1. For symptomatic patients with known nonobstruc- tive CAD who have stable chest pain, CCTA is reasonable for determining atherosclerotic plaque burden and progression to obstructive CAD, and guiding therapeutic decision-making.124,158,159,340-343

2. For patients with known coronary stenosis from 40% to 90% on CCTA, FFR can be useful for diagnosis of vessel-specific ischemia and to guide decision- making regarding the use of ICA.146,148,149,160,286-288

e356 November 30, 2021

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 13. Clinical Decision Pathway for Patients With Stable Chest Pain (or Equivalent) Symptoms With Prior MI, Prior Revascularization, or Known CAD on Invasive Coronary Angiography or CCTA, Including Those With Nonobstructive CAD

Test choice should be guided by local availability and expertise.

*Known CAD means prior MI, revascularization, known obstructive CAD, nonobstructive CAD. †High-risk CAD means left main stenosis ≥50%; or obstructive CAD with FFR-CT ≤0.80. ‡Test choice guided by the patient’s exercise capacity, resting electrocardiographic abnormalities. §Patients with prior CABG or stents >3.0 mm. Follow-up Testing and Intensification of GDMT Guided by Initial Test Results and Persistence / Worsening / Frequency of Symptoms and Shared Decision Making.

CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCTA, coronary CT angiography; CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; ECG, electrocardiogram; FFR-CT, fractional flow reserve with CT; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; ICA, invasive coronary angiography; iFR, instant wave-free ratio; INOCA, ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease; MI, myocardial infarction; MPI, myocardial perfusion imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; and SPECT, single-photon emission CT.

5.2.3. Patients With Suspected Ischemia and No Obstructive CAD (INOCA)

Recommendations for Patients With Suspected INOCA (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

2a

B-NR

2. For patients with persistent stable chest pain and nonobstructive CAD, stress PET MPI with myocardial blood flow reserve is reasonable to diagnose microvascular dysfunction and enhance risk stratification.272,331-334,344,345

2a

B-NR

3. For patients with persistent stable chest pain and nonobstructive CAD, stress CMR with the addition of myocardial blood flow reserve measurement is rea- sonable to improve diagnosis of coronary myocardial dysfunction and for estimating risk of MACE.328,346,347

Recommendations for Patients With Suspected INOCA Referenced studies that support the recommendations are summarized in Online Data Supplements 36 and 37.

COR

LOE

Recommendations

2a

B-NR

1. For patients with persistent stable chest pain and nonobstructive CAD and at least mild myocardial ischemia on imaging, it is reasonable to consider invasive coronary function testing to improve the diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction and to enhance risk stratification.348-351

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 November 30, 2021 e357

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al 2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

Figure 14. Clinical Decision Pathway for INOCA

Test choice should be guided by local availability and expertise.

*Ford T et al.352 †Cannot exclude microvascular vasospasm.

ACh indicates acetylcholine; CAD, coronary artery disease; CFR, coronary flow reserve; CFVR, coronary flow velocity reserve; CMD, coronary microvascular dysfunction; CV, cardiovascular; ECG, electrocardiographic; FFR, fractional flow reserve; GDMT, guideline-directed medical therapy; IMR, index of microcirculatory restriction; INOCA, ischemia and no obstructive CAD; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; and MBFR, myocardial blood flow reserve.

Recommendations for Patients With Suspected INOCA (Continued)

COR

LOE

Recommendations

2b

C-EO

4. For patients with persistent stable chest pain and nonobstructive CAD, stress echocardiogra- phy with the addition of coronary flow velocity reserve measurement may be reasonable to improve diagnosis of coronary myocardial dys- function and for estimating risk of MACE.

A proposed diagnostic evaluation pathway is outlined in Figure 14.

ACC/AHA JOINT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, MACC, FAHA, Chair; Joshua A. Beckman, MD, MS, FAHA, FACC, Chair-Elect; Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair*; Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA*; Anastasia L. Arm- bruster, PharmD, FACC; Kim K. Birtcher, MS, PharmD, AACC*; Ralph G. Brindis, MD, MPH, MACC*; Joaquin E.

Cigarroa, MD, FACC*; Lisa de las Fuentes, MD, MS, FASE, FAHA; Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA; Dave L. Dixon, PharmD, FACC*; Lee A. Fleisher, MD, FACC, FAHA*; Federico Gentile, MD, FACC*; Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA*; Bulent Gorenek, MD, FACC; Norrisa Haynes, MD; Adrian F. Hernandez, MD; Mark A. Hlatky, MD, FACC, FAHA*; John S. Ikonomidis, MD, PhD, FAHA*; José A. Joglar, MD, FAHA, FACC; W. Schuyler Jones, MD, FACC; Joseph E. Marine, MD, FACC*; Daniel B. Mark, MD, MPH, FACC; Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, MS, FACC, FAHA; Latha P. Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA, FACC; Mariann R. Piano, RN, PhD, FAHA; Tanveer Rab, MD, FACC; Barbara Riegel, PhD, RN, FAHA*; Erica S. Spatz, MD, MHS, FACC; Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland, MD, FACC; Duminda N. Wi- jeysundera, MD, PhD*; Y. Joseph Woo, MD, FAHA, FACC

*Former ACC/AHA Joint Committee member; current member during the writing effort.

e358 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

ARTICLE INFORMATION

This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Clinical Pol- icy Approval Committee in May 2021, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in May 2021, the Society of Cardiovascu- lar Computed Tomography in July 2021, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine in June 2021, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in June 2021, the American College of Chest Physicians in June 2021, the Ameri- can Society of Echocardiography in June 2021, the American Heart Association Executive Committee in July 2021, and the American College of Cardiology Sci- ence and Quality Committee in July 2021.

Supplemental materials are available with this article at https://www.ahajour- nals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030.

This article has been copublished in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copies: This document is available on the websites of the American Heart Association (professional.heart.org) and the American College of Cardiology (www. acc.org). A copy of the document is also available at https://professional.heart.org/ statements by selecting the “Guidelines & Statements” button. To purchase addi- tional reprints, call 215-356-2721 or email Meredith.Edelman@wolterskluwer.com.

The expert peer review of AHA-commissioned documents (eg, scientific statements, clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews) is conducted by the AHA Office of Science Operations. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit https://professional.heart.org/statements. Select the “Guide- lines & Statements” drop-down menu near the top of the webpage, then click “Publication Development.”

Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at https://www.heart.org/permissions. A link to the “Copyright Permissions Re- quest Form” appears in the second paragraph (https://www.heart.org/en/about- us/statements-and-policies/copyright-request-form).

REFERENCES

1. Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/ SAEM/SCCT/SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144:e368–e454.

1a. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American Col- lege of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021. In press.

2. Rui P, Kang K. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2017 emergency department summary tables. National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2017_ ed_web_tables-508.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2021.

3. Rui P, Okeyode T. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2016 na- tional summary tables. 2016 Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2016_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2021.

4. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2020 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e139–e596.

5. Ruigomez A, Rodriguez LA, Wallander MA, et al. Chest pain in general prac- tice: incidence, comorbidity and mortality. Fam Pract. 2006;23:167–174.

6. BosnerS,BeckerA,HaasenritterJ,etal.Chestpaininprimarycare:epide-

miology and pre-work-up probabilities. Eur J Gen Pract. 2009;15:141–146.

7. Hsia RY, Hale Z, Tabas JA. A national study of the prevalence of life- threatening diagnoses in patients with chest pain. JAMA Intern Med.

2016;176:1029–1032.

8. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Methodology manual and

policies from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Ameri- can College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. 2010. Avail- able at: https://www.acc.org/Guidelines/About-Guidelines-and-Clinical- Documents/Methodology and https://professional.heart.org/-/media/ phd-files/guidelines-and-statements/methodology_manual_and_policies_ ucm_319826.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2021.

9. Canto JG, Rogers WJ, Goldberg RJ, et al. Association of age and sex with myocardial infarction symptom presentation and in-hospital mortality. JAMA. 2012;307:813–822.

10. van der Meer MG, Backus BE, van der Graaf Y, et al. The diagnostic val- ue of clinical symptoms in women and men presenting with chest pain at the emergency department, a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116431.

11. Hemal K, Pagidipati NJ, Coles A, et al. Sex differences in demographics, risk factors, presentation, and noninvasive testing in stable outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease: insights from the PROMISE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016;9:337–346.

12. Lichtman JH, Leifheit EC, Safdar B, et al. Sex differences in the presentation and perception of symptoms among young patients with myocardial infarction: evidence from the VIRGO Study (Variation in Re- covery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients). Circulation. 2018;137:781–790.

13. Bosner S, Haasenritter J, Hani MA, et al. Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:79.

14. Ferry AV, Anand A, Strachan FE, et al. Presenting symptoms in men and women diagnosed with myocardial infarction using sex-specific criteria. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e012307.

15. Kreatsoulas C, Fleegler EW, Kubzansky LD, et al. Young adults and ad- verse childhood dvents: a potent measure of cardiovascular risk. Am J Med. 2019;132:605–613.

16. Garcia M, Mulvagh SL, Merz CN, et al. Cardiovascular disease in women: clinical perspectives. Circ Res. 2016;118:1273–1293.

17. Pelletier R, Khan NA, Cox J, et al. Sex versus gender-related characteristics: which predicts outcome after acute coronary syndrome in the young? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:127–135.

18. Kreatsoulas C, Dinakar D, Mehta S, et al. Machine learning to evaluate gen- der differences in typical and atypical angina among patients with obstruc- tive coronary artery disease. ESC Congress 2019. Paris, France, 2019.

19. DeFilippis EM, Collins BL, Singh A, et al. Women who experience a myocardial infarction at a young age have worse outcomes compared with men: the Mass General Brigham YOUNG-MI registry. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:4127–4137.

20. Grosmaitre P, Le Vavasseur O, Yachouh E, et al. Significance of atypical symptoms for the diagnosis and management of myocardial infarction in elderly patients admitted to emergency departments. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2013;106:586–592.

21. Leifheit-Limson EC, D’Onofrio G, Daneshvar M, et al. Sex differences in cardiac risk factors, perceived risk, and health care provider discussion of risk and risk modification among young patients with acute myocardial in- farction: the VIRGO study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:1949–1957.

22. McConaghyJR,OzaRS.Outpatientdiagnosisofacutechestpaininadults. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87:177–182.

23. Perrier A, Desmarais S, Miron MJ, et al. Non-invasive diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in outpatients. Lancet. 1999;353:190–195.

24. Tsai TT, Trimarchi S, Nienaber CA. Acute aortic dissection: perspectives from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) Eur J Vasc En- dovasc Surg. 2009;37:149–159.

25. von Kodolitsch Y, Schwartz AG, Nienaber CA. Clinical prediction of acute aortic dissection. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2977–2982.

26. Klompas M. Does this patient have an acute thoracic aortic dissection? JAMA. 2002;287:2262–2272.

27. Diercks DB, Kontos MC, Chen AY, et al. Utilization and impact of pre- hospital electrocardiograms for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:161–166.

28. Puymirat E, Simon T, Steg PG, et al. Association of changes in clinical char- acteristics and management with improvement in survival among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2012;308:998–1006.

29. Jollis JG, Granger CB, Henry TD, et al. Systems of care for ST-segment- elevation myocardial infarction: a report From the American Heart Associa- tion’s Mission: Lifeline. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:423–428.

30. Postma S, Bergmeijer T, ten Berg J, et al. Pre-hospital diagnosis, triage and treatment in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Heart. 2012;98:1674–1678.

31. Patel M, Dunford JV, Aguilar S, et al. Pre-hospital electrocardiography by emergency medical personnel: effects on scene and transport times for chest pain and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:806–811.

32. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;127:e362–e425.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e359

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

33. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:e344–e426.

34. Neumann JT, Twerenbold R, Ojeda F, et al. Application of high-sensitivity troponin in suspected myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2529–2540.

35. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocar-

dial infarction (2018). Circulation. 2018;138:e618–e651.

36. Becker L, Larsen MP, Eisenberg MS. Incidence of cardiac arrest during self-

transport for chest pain. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28:612–616.

37. Vogiatzis I, Koulouris E, Ioannidis A, et al. The importance of the 15-lead versus 12-lead ECG Recordings in the diagnosis and treatment of right ventricle and left ventricle posterior and lateral wall acute myocardial infarc-

tions. Acta Inform Med. 2019;27:35–39.

38. Ashida T, Tani S, Nagao K, et al. Usefulness of synthesized 18-lead electro-

cardiography in the diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a pilot

study. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:448–457.

39. Matetzky S, Freimark D, Feinberg MS, et al. Acute myocardial infarction with

isolated ST-segment elevation in posterior chest leads V7-9: “hidden” ST- segment elevations revealing acute posterior infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:748–753.

40. Apple FS, Jesse RL, Newby LK, et al. National Academy of Clinical Bio- chemistry and IFCC Committee for Standardization of Markers of Car- diac Damage Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: analytical is- sues for biochemical markers of acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2007;115:e352–e355.

41. Bandstein N, Ljung R, Johansson M, et al. Undetectable high-sensitivity car- diac troponin T level in the emergency department and risk of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2569–2578.

42. Body R, Burrows G, Carley S, et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T con- centrations below the limit of detection to exclude acute myocardial infarc- tion: a prospective evaluation. Clin Chem. 2015;61:983–989.

43. Body R, Carley S, McDowell G, et al. Rapid exclusion of acute myocardial infarction in patients with undetectable troponin using a high-sensitivity as- say. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1332–1339.

44. Boeddinghaus J, Nestelberger T, Twerenbold R, et al. Direct comparison of 4 very early rule-out strategies for acute myocardial infarction using high- sensitivity cardiac troponin I. Circulation. 2017;135:1597–1611.

45. Chapman AR, Anand A, Boeddinghaus J, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of early rule-out pathways for acute myocardial infarction. Circu- lation. 2017;135:1586–1596.

46. de Lemos JA, Morrow DA, deFilippi CR. Highly sensitive troponin as- says and the cardiology community: a love/hate relationship? Clin Chem. 2011;57:826–829.

47. Jaffe AS, Apple FS, Morrow DA, et al. Being rational about (im)precision: a statement from the Biochemistry Subcommittee of the Joint European So- ciety of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/World Heart Federation Task Force for the Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Clin Chem. 2010;56:941–943.

48. Morrow DA, Cannon CP, Jesse RL, et al. National Academy of Clinical Bio- chemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: clinical characteristics and utilization of biochemical markers in acute coronary syndromes. Circula- tion. 2007;115:e356–e375.

49. Mueller C, Giannitsis E, Christ M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a 0-hour/1- hour algorithm in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68:76–87, e4.

50. Odqvist M, Andersson PO, Tygesen H, et al. High-sensitivity troponins and out- comes after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2616–2624.

51. Peacock WF, Baumann BM, Bruton D, et al. Efficacy of high-sensitivity tro- ponin T in identifying very-low-risk patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:104–111.

52. Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1211–1218.

53. Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Maushart C, et al. Risk stratification in patients with unstable angina using absolute serial changes of 3 high-sensitive tro- ponin assays. Am Heart J. 2013;165:371–378.e3.

54. Rubini Gimenez M, Hoeller R, Reichlin T, et al. Rapid rule out of acute myo- cardial infarction using undetectable levels of high-sensitivity cardiac tropo- nin. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:3896–3901.

55. Rubini Gimenez M, Twerenbold R, Jaeger C, et al. One-hour rule-in and rule- out of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I. Am J Med. 2015;128:861–870, e4.

56. Twerenbold R, Boeddinghaus J, Nestelberger T, et al. Clinical use of high- aensitivity cardiac troponin in patients with suspected myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:996–1012.

57. Twerenbold R, Neumann JT, Sorensen NA, et al. Prospective calidation of the 0/1-h algorithm for early diagnosis of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:620–632.

58. Wildi K, Nelles B, Twerenbold R, et al. Safety and efficacy of the 0 h/3 h protocol for rapid rule out of myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2016;181:16–25.

59. Zhelev Z, Hyde C, Youngman E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of single baseline

measurement of Elecsys Troponin T high-sensitive assay for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in emergency department: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h15.

60. Cullen L, Mueller C, Parsonage WA, et al. Validation of high-sensitivity tro- ponin I in a 2-hour diagnostic strategy to assess 30-day outcomes in emer- gency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1242–1249.

61. Lipinski MJ, Baker NC, Escarcega RO, et al. Comparison of conventional and high-sensitivity troponin in patients with chest pain: a collaborative meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2015;169:6–16, e6.

62. Twerenbold R, Wildi K, Jaeger C, et al. Optimal cutoff levels of more sensi- tive cardiac troponin assays for the early diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with renal dysfunction. Circulation. 2015;131:2041–2050.

63. van Wijk S, Jacobs L, Eurlings LW, et al. Troponin T measurements by high- sensitivity vs conventional assays for risk stratification in acute dyspnea. Clin Chem. 2012;58:284–292.

64. Aviles RJ, Wright RS, Aviles JM, et al. Long-term prognosis of patients with clinical unstable angina pectoris without elevation of creatine kinase but with elevation of cardiac troponin I levels. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:875–878.

65. Eggers KM, Oldgren J, Nordenskjold A, et al. Diagnostic value of serial mea- surement of cardiac markers in patients with chest pain: limited value of adding myoglobin to troponin I for exclusion of myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2004;148:574–581.

66. Kavsak PA, MacRae AR, Newman AM, et al. Effects of contemporary tropo- nin assay sensitivity on the utility of the early markers myoglobin and CKMB isoforms in evaluating patients with possible acute myocardial infarction. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;380:213–216.

67. Kontos MC, de Lemos JA, Ou FS, et al. Troponin-positive, MB-negative patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an undertreated but high-risk patient group: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network- Get With The Guidelines (NCDR ACTION-GWTG) Registry. Am Heart J. 2010;160:819–825.

68. Newby LK, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. Frequency and clinical implications of discordant creatine kinase-MB and troponin measurements in acute coro- nary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:312–318.

69. Volz KA, McGillicuddy DC, Horowitz GL, et al. Creatine kinase-MB does not add additional benefit to a negative troponin in the evaluation of chest pain. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:188–190.

70. Henzlova MJ, Duvall WL, Einstein AJ, et al. ASNC imaging guidelines for SPECT nuclear cardiology procedures: stress, protocols, and tracers. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:606–639.

71. Senior R, Becher H, Monaghan M, et al. Contrast echocardiography: evi- dence-based recommendations by European Association of Echocardiog- raphy. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10:194–212.

72. Patil HR, Main M. Revisiting the safety profile of echocardiography con- trast agents. Available at: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/ar- ticles/2016/06/23/08/23/revisiting-the-safety-profile-of-echocardiogra- phy-contrast-agents. Accessed August 16, 2020.

73. Porter TR, Abdelmoneim S, Belcik JT, et al. Guidelines for the cardiac so- nographer in the performance of contrast echocardiography: a focused update from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocar- diogr. 2014;27:797–810.

73a. Pellikka PA, Arruda-Olson A, Chaudhry FA, et al. Guidelines for perfor- mance, interpretation, and application of stress echocardiography in isch- emic heart disease: from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2020;33:1–41.e8.

74. Kramer CM, Barkhausen J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, et al. Standardized cardio- vascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) protocols: 2020 update. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2020;22:17.

75. Abbara S, Blanke P, Maroules CD, et al. SCCT guidelines for the perfor- mance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10:435–449.

e360 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

76. Jaffe AS. Chasing troponin: how low can you go if you can see the rise? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1763–1764.

77. Morrow DA. Clinician’s guide to early rule-out strategies with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. Circulation. 2017;135:1612–1616.

78. Januzzi JL Jr, Mahler SA, Christenson RH, et al. Recommendations for in- stitutions transitioning to high-sensitivity troponin testing: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1059–1077.

79. Huis In ‘t Veld MA, Cullen L, Mahler SA, et al. The fast and the furious: low-risk chest pain and the rapid rule-out protocol. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18:474–478.

80. Schulman-Marcus J, Hartaigh BO, Gransar H, et al. Sex-specific associa- tions between coronary artery plaque extent and risk of major adverse car- diovascular events: the CONFIRM Long-Term Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016;9:364–372.

81. Hadamitzky M, Freissmuth B, Meyer T, et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography for prediction of cardiac events in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2:404–411.

82. Finck T, Hardenberg J, Will A, et al. Ten-year follow-up after coronary com- puted tomography angiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1330–1338.

83. Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, Bangalore S, et al. Baseline characteristics and risk profiles of participants in the ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4:273–286.

84. ISCHEMIA Trial Research GroupMaron DJ, Hochman JS, et al. Interna- tional Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and In- vasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial: rationale and design. Am Heart J. 2018;201:124–135.

85. Pickering JW, Than MP, Cullen L, et al. Rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction with a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T measurement be- low the limit of detection: a collaborative meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:715–724.

86. McRae AD, Innes G, Graham M, et al. Undetectable concentrations of a Food and Drug Administration-approved high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay to rule out acute myocardial infarction at emergency department ar- rival. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1267–1277.

87. Sandoval Y, Nowak R, deFilippi CR, et al. Myocardial infarction risk strati- fication with a single measurement of high-sensitivity troponin I. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:271–282.

88. Bularga A, Lee KK, Stewart S, et al. High-sensitivity troponin and the ap- plication of risk stratification thresholds in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 2019;140:1557–1568.

89. Chew DP, Lambrakis K, Blyth A, et al. A randomized trial of a 1-hour tro- ponin T protocol in suspected acute coronary syndromes: the Rapid As- sessment of Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Emergency De- partment With High-Sensitivity Troponin T Study (RAPID-TnT) Circulation. 2019;140:1543–1556.

90. Than M, Cullen L, Aldous S, et al. 2-Hour accelerated diagnostic pro- tocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms using contemporary troponins as the only biomarker: the ADAPT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2091–2098.

91. Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC, et al. The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:195–203.

92. Mark DG, Huang J, Chettipally U, et al. Performance of coronary risk scores among patients with chest pain in the emergency department. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:606–616.

93. Stopyra JP, Miller CD, Hiestand BC, et al. Chest pain risk stratification: a comparison of the 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol (ADAPT) and the HEART Pathway. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2016;15:46–49.

94. Stopyra JP, Miller CD, Hiestand BC, et al. Validation of the no objective testing rule and comparison to the HEART Pathway. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1165–1168.

95. Stopyra JP, Riley RF, Hiestand BC, et al. The HEART Pathway random- ized controlled trial one-year outcomes. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26: 41–50.

96. Than MP, Pickering JW, Aldous SJ, et al. Effectiveness of EDACS ver- sus ADAPT accelerated diagnostic pathways for chest pain: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial embedded within practice. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68:93–102, e1.

97. Than M, Aldous S, Lord SJ, et al. A 2-hour diagnostic protocol for possible cardiac chest pain in the emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:51–58.

98. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the manage- ment of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persis- tent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289–1367.

99. Twerenbold R, Costabel JP, Nestelberger T, et al. Outcome of applying the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm in patients with suspected myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:483–494.

100. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the man- agement of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting Without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur Heart J. 2016;37:267–315.

101. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168:2153–2158.

102. Fanaroff AC, Rymer JA, Goldstein SA, et al. Does this patient with chest pain have acute coronary syndrome?: The rational clinical examination sys- tematic review. JAMA. 2015;314:1955–1965.

103. Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Wildi K, et al. Prospective validation of a 1-hour algorithm to rule-out and rule-in acute myocardial infarction using a high- sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. CMAJ. 2015;187:E243–E252.

104. Greenslade JH, Carlton EW, Van Hise C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a new high-sensitivity troponin I assay and five accelerated diagnostic path- ways for ruling out acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syn- drome. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71:439–451, e3.

105. Flaws D, Than M, Scheuermeyer FX, et al. External validation of the emer- gency department assessment of chest pain score accelerated diagnostic pathway (EDACS-ADP) Emerg Med J. 2016;33:618–625.

106. Farkouh ME, Smars PA, Reeder GS, et al. A clinical trial of a chest- pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina. Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1882–1888.

107. Miller CD, Hwang W, Hoekstra JW, et al. Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with observation unit care reduces cost for patients with emergent chest pain: a randomized trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;201056:209–219.

108. Roberts RR, Zalenski RJ, Mensah EK, et al. Costs of an emergency depart- ment-based accelerated diagnostic protocol vs hospitalization in patients with chest pain: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;278:1670–1676.

109. Ross MA, Hockenberry JM, Mutter R, et al. Protocol-driven emergency de- partment observation units offer savings, shorter stays, and reduced admis- sions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:2149–2156.

110. Rydman RJ, Zalenski RJ, Roberts RR, et al. Patient satisfaction with an emergency department chest pain observation unit. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;29:109–115.

111. Miller CD, Hwang W, Case D, et al. Stress CMR imaging observation unit in the emergency department reduces 1-year medical care costs in patients with acute chest pain: a randomized study for comparison with inpatient care. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2011;4:862–870.

112. Hockenberry JM, Mutter R, Barrett M, et al. Factors associated with pro- longed observation services stays and the impact of long stays on patient cost. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:893–909.

113. Goldstein JA, Chinnaiyan KM, Abidov A, et al. The CT-STAT (Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography for Systematic Triage of Acute Chest Pain Patients to Treatment) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1414–1422.

114. Litt HI, Gatsonis C, Snyder B, et al. CT angiography for safe discharge of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1393–1403.

115. Goodacre S, Thokala P, Carroll C, et al. Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coro- nary syndrome. Health Technol Assess17;2013. v–vi, 1-188.

116. Goldstein JA, Gallagher MJ, O’Neill WW, et al. A randomized controlled trial of multi-slice coronary computed tomography for evaluation of acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:863–871.

117. Chang SA, Choi SI, Choi EK, et al. Usefulness of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography as an initial diagnostic approach in patients with acute chest pain. Am Heart J. 2008;156:375–383.

118. Miller AH, Pepe PE, Peshock R, et al. Is coronary computed tomography angiography a resource sparing strategy in the risk stratification and evalu- ation of acute chest pain? Results of a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:458–467.

119. Hoffmann U, Truong QA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Coronary CT angiog- raphy versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:299–308.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e361

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

120. Linde JJ, Kofoed KF, Sorgaard M, et al. Cardiac computed tomogra- phy guided treatment strategy in patients with recent acute-onset chest pain: results from the randomised, controlled trial: CArdiac cT in the treatment of acute CHest pain (CATCH) Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168:5257–5262.

121. Hamilton-Craig C, Fifoot A, Hansen M, et al. Diagnostic performance and cost of CT angiography versus stress ECG—a randomized prospective study of suspected acute coronary syndrome chest pain in the emergency department (CT-COMPARE) Int J Cardiol. 2014;177:867–873.

122. Levsky JM, Spevack DM, Travin MI, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography versus radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with chest pain admitted to telemetry: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:174–183.

123. Dedic A, Lubbers MM, Schaap J, et al. Coronary CT angiography for sus- pected ACS in the era of high-sensitivity troponins: randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:16–26.

124. Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Udelson JE, et al. Prognostic value of noninvasive cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain: insights from the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) Circulation. 2017;135:2320–2332.

125. Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all- cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) of 23 854 patients without known coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:849–860.

126. Blankstein R, Ahmed W, Bamberg F, et al. Comparison of exercise tread- mill testing with cardiac computed tomography angiography among pa- tients presenting to the emergency room with chest pain: the Rule Out Myocardial Infarction Using Computer-Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:233–242.

127. Jeetley P, Burden L, Stoykova B, et al. Clinical and economic impact of stress echocardiography compared with exercise electrocardiog- raphy in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome but nega- tive troponin: a prospective randomized controlled study. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:204–211.

128. Dadkhah S, Almuwaqqat Z, Sulaiman S, et al. Sensitive troponin I and stress testing in the emergency department for the early manage- ment of chest pain using 2-hour protocol. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2017; 16:89–92.

129. Nucifora G, Badano LP, Sarraf-Zadegan N, et al. Comparison of early dobu- tamine stress echocardiography and exercise electrocardiographic testing for management of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1068–1073.

130. Jasani G, Papas M, Patel AJ, et al. Immediate stress echocardiography for low-risk chest pain patients in the emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study. J Emerg Med. 2018;54:156–164.

131. Krishnan S, Venn R, Blumenthal DM, et al. Utilization of stress testing for low-risk patients with chest discomfort in the emergency department. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26:1642–1646.

132. Hermann LK, Newman DH, Pleasant WA, et al. Yield of routine provocative cardiac testing among patients in an emergency department-based chest pain unit. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1128–1133.

133. Diercks DB, Mumma BE, Frank Peacock W, et al. Incremental value of objective cardiac testing in addition to physician impression and se- rial contemporary troponin measurements in women. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20:265–270.

134. Poldervaart JM, Six AJ, Backus BE, et al. The predictive value of the exercise ECG for major adverse cardiac events in patients who pre- sented with chest pain in the emergency department. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102:305–312.

135. Napoli AM, Tran S, Wang J. Low-risk chest pain patients younger than 40 years do not benefit from admission and stress testing. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013;12:201–203.

136. Scott AC, Bilesky J, Lamanna A, et al. Limited utility of exercise stress testing in the evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome in pa- tients aged less than 40 years with intermediate risk features. Emerg Med Australas. 2014;26:170–176.

137. Aldous S, Richards AM, Cullen L, et al. The incremental value of stress test- ing in patients with acute chest pain beyond serial cardiac troponin testing. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:319–324.

138. Greenslade JH, Parsonage W, Ho A, et al. Utility of routine exercise stress testing among intermediate risk chest pain patients attending an emer- gency department. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24:879–884.

139. Skoien W. Diagnostic yield of routine stress testing in low and intermediate risk chest pain patients under 40 years: a systematic review. Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2016;15:114–120.

140. Levsky JM, Haramati LB, Spevack DM, et al. Coronary computed tomog- raphy angiography versus stress echocardiography in acute chest pain: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2018;11:1288–1297.

141. Heitner JF, Klem I, Rasheed D, et al. Stress cardiac MR imaging com- pared with stress echocardiography in the early evaluation of patients who present to the emergency department with intermediate-risk chest pain. Radiology. 2014;271:56–64.

142. Udelson JE, Beshansky JR, Ballin DS, et al. Myocardial perfusion imaging for evaluation and triage of patients with suspected acute cardiac isch- emia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:2693–2700.

143. Miller CD, Case LD, Little WC, et al. Stress CMR reduces revascularization, hospital readmission, and recurrent cardiac testing in intermediate-risk pa- tients with acute chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2013;6:785–794.

144. Ingkanisorn WP, Kwong RY, Bohme NS, et al. Prognosis of negative ade- nosine stress magnetic resonance in patients presenting to an emergency department with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1427–1432.

145. Siontis GC, Mavridis D, Greenwood JP, et al. Outcomes of non-invasive diagnostic modalities for the detection of coronary artery disease: net- work meta-analysis of diagnostic randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2018;360:k504.

146. Norgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. Diagnostic performance of noninva- sive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1145–1155.

147. Sand NPR, Veien KT, Nielsen SS, et al. Prospective comparison of FFR derived from coronary CT angiography with SPECT perfusion imaging in stable coronary artery disease: the ReASSESS study. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2018;11:1640–1650.

148. Patel MR, Norgaard BL, Fairbairn TA, et al. 1-Year impact on medical prac- tice and clinical outcomes of FFRCT: the ADVANCE registry. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2020;13:97–105.

149. Fairbairn TA, Nieman K, Akasaka T, et al. Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3701–3711.

150. Nakanishi R, Osawa K, Ceponiene I, et al. The diagnostic performance of SPECT-MPI to predict functional significant coronary artery dis- ease by fractional flow reserve derived from CCTA (FFRCT): sub-anal- ysis from ACCURACY and VCT001 studies. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33:2067–2072.

151. Chinnaiyan KM, Safian RD, Gallagher ML, et al. Clinical use of CT-derived fractional flow reserve in the emergency department. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2020;13:452–461.

152. Ferencik M, Lu MT, Mayrhofer T, et al. Non-invasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in patients with acute chest pain: subgroup analysis of the ROMICAT II trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2019;13:196–202.

153. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or with- out PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–1516. 154. Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1395–1407. 155. Hulten E, Pickett C, Bittencourt MS, et al. Outcomes after coronary com- puted tomography angiography in the emergency department: a system- atic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll

Cardiol. 2013;61:880–892.

156. Hulten E, Pickett C, Bittencourt MS, et al. Meta-analysis of coronary CT

angiography in the emergency department. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging.

2013;14:607.

157. Puchner SB, Liu T, Mayrhofer T, et al. High-risk plaque detected on coro-

nary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: results from the ROMICAT-II trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:684–692.

158. Motoyama S, Ito H, Sarai M, et al. Plaque characterization by coronary com- puted tomography angiography and the likelihood of acute coronary events in mid-term follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:337–346.

159. Chang HJ, Lin FY, Lee SE, et al. Coronary atherosclerotic precursors of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2511–2522.

160. Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, et al. Clinical outcomes of fractional

flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnos- tic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery

e362 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFR(CT): outcome and re-

source impacts study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3359–3367.

161. Mahmarian JJ, Shaw LJ, Filipchuk NG, et al. A multinational study to es- tablish the value of early adenosine technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging in identifying a low-risk group for early hospital discharge

after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2448–2457.

162. Mahmarian JJ, Dakik HA, Filipchuk NG, et al. An initial strategy of inten- sive medical therapy is comparable to that of coronary revascularization for suppression of scintigraphic ischemia in high-risk but stable survivors of

acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2458–2467.

163. Yan AT, Yan RT, Tan M, et al. Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better. Eur Heart

J. 2007;28:1072–1078.

164. Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. 2017 appropriate use criteria

for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart dis- ease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2212–2241.

165. Patel MR, Bailey SR, Bonow RO, et al. ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1995–2027.

166. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI fo- cused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STelevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/ AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-Elevation myocardial in- farction. Circulation. 2016;133:1135–1147.

167. Pathik B, Raman B, Mohd Amin NH, et al. Troponin-positive chest pain with unobstructed coronary arteries: incremental diagnostic value of car- diovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17:1146–1152.

168. Dastidar AG, Rodrigues JCL, Johnson TW, et al. Myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries: impact of CMR early after presentation. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2017;10:1204–1206.

169. Assomull RG, Lyne JC, Keenan N, et al. The role of cardiovascular mag- netic resonance in patients presenting with chest pain, raised troponin, and unobstructed coronary arteries. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1242–1249.

170. Tornvall P, Gerbaud E, Behaghel A, et al. Myocarditis or “true” infarction by cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with a clinical diagnosis of myo- cardial infarction without obstructive coronary disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Atherosclerosis. 2015;241:87–91.

171. Dastidar AG, Baritussio A, De Garate E, et al. Prognostic role of CMR and conventional risk factors in myocardial infarction with nonobstructed coro- nary arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1973–1982.

172. Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, et al. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5065 grafts related to sur- vival and reoperation in 1388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28:616–626.

173. Harskamp RE, Lopes RD, Baisden CE, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future directions. Ann Surg. 2013;257:824–833.

174. Wolk MJ, Bailey SR, Doherty JU, et al. ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/ HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use crite- ria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:380–406.

175. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, et al. ACCF/ SCCT/ACR/AHA/ ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for

cardiac computed tomography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Circulation. 2010;122:e525–e555.

176. Sabik JF 3rd. Understanding saphenous vein graft patency. Circulation. 2011;124:273–275.

177. Taggart DP. Current status of arterial grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:427–430.

178. Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, et al. Radial-artery or saphe- nous-vein grafts in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2069–2077.

179. Fihn SD, Blankenship JC, Alexander KP, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/ PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2014;130:1749–1767.

180. Hammermeister KE, DeRouen TA, Dodge HT. Variables predictive of surviv- al in patients with coronary disease. Selection by univariate and multivariate analyses from the clinical, electrocardiographic, exercise, arteriographic, and quantitative angiographic evaluations. Circulation. 1979;59:421–430.

181. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Exercise treadmill score for predicting prognosis in coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:793–800.

182. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124:e574–e651.

183. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;124:e652–e735.

184. Bittl JA, He Y, Jacobs AK, et al. Bayesian methods affirm the use of percutaneous coronary intervention to improve survival in pa- tients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2013;127:2177–2185.

185. Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, et al. US Renal Data System 2017 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2018;71:A7.

186. Voroneanu L, Covic A. Arrhythmias in hemodialysis patients. J Nephrol. 2009;22:716–725.

187. Herzog CA, Littrell K, Arko C, et al. Clinical characteristics of dialysis pa- tients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States: a collaborative project of the United States Renal Data System and the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 2007;116:1465–1472.

188. Kielstein JT, Abou-Rebyeh F, Hafer C, et al. Right-sided chest pain at the onset of haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16:1493–1495.

189. Modi KS, Gross D, Davidman M. The patient developing chest pain at the onset of haemodialysis sessions—it is not always angina pectoris. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14:221–223.

190. Finkel JB, Marhefka GD. Rethinking cocaine-associated chest pain and acute coronary syndromes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86:1198–1207.

191. DeFilippis E, Singh A, Divakaran S, et al. Cocaine and marijuana use among young adults with myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2540–2551.

192. Hawley LA, Auten JD, Matteucci MJ, et al. Cardiac complications of adult methamphetamine exposures. J Emerg Med. 2013;45:821–827.

193. Hess EP, Hollander JE, Schaffer JT, et al. Shared decision making in pa- tients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial. BMJ. 2016;355:i6165.

194. Hess EP, Knoedler MA, Shah ND, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:251–259.

195. Pollack CV, Schreiber D, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Clinical characteristics,

management, and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmo- nary embolism in the emergency department: initial report of EMPEROR (Multicenter Emergency Medicine Pulmonary Embolism in the Real World Registry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:700–706.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e363

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

196. Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:3033–3069; 69a-69k.

197. Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, et al. Evaluation of patients with sus- pected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:701–711.

198. Ceriani E, Combescure C, Le Gal G, et al. Clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:957–970.

199. Bozkurt B, Colvin M, Cook J, et al. Current diagnostic and treatment strate- gies for specific dilated cardiomyopathies: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;134:e579–e646.

200. Ferreira VM, Schulz-Menger J, Holmvang G, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in nonischemic myocardial inflammation: expert recommenda- tions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3158–3176.

201. Lintingre PF, Nivet H, Clement-Guinaudeau S, et al. High-resolution late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of myo- cardial infarction with nonobstructed coronary arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2020;13:1135–1148.

202. Klein AL, Abbara S, Agler DA, et al. American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with pericardial disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26:965–1012, e15.

203. Adler Y, Charron P, Imazio M, et al. 2015 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2921–2964.

204. Taylor AM, Dymarkowski S, Verbeken EK, et al. Detection of pericardial inflammation with late-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:569–574.

205. Young PM, Glockner JF, Williamson EE, et al. MR imaging find- ings in 76 consecutive surgically proven cases of pericardial dis- ease with CT and pathologic correlation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;28:1099–1109.

206. Aquaro GD, Perfetti M, Camastra G, et al. Cardiac MR with late gadolinium enhancement in acute myocarditis with preserved systolic function: ITAMY study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:1977–1987.

207. Grani C, Buechel RR, Kaufmann PA, et al. Multimodality imaging in in- dividuals with anomalous coronary arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2017;10:471–481.

208. Hammer MM, Raptis CA, Javidan-Nejad C, et al. Accuracy of computed to- mography findings in acute pericarditis. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:1197–1202.

209. Carter C, Maddock R, Amsterdam E, et al. Panic disorder and chest pain in

the coronary care unit. Psychosomatics. 1992;33:302–309.

210. Kline JA, Shapiro NI, Jones AE, et al. Outcomes and radiation exposure of emergency department patients with chest pain and shortness of breath and ultralow pretest probability: a multicenter study. Ann Emerg Med.

2014;63:281–288.

211. Webster R, Norman P, Goodacre S, et al. The prevalence and correlates of

psychological outcomes in patients with acute non-cardiac chest pain: a

systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2012;29:267–273.

212. Eslick GD, Talley NJ. Natural history and predictors of outcome for non-

cardiac chest pain: a prospective 4-year cohort study. Neurogastroenterol

Motil. 2008;20:989–997.

213. Foldes-Busque G, Marchand A, Chauny JM, et al. Unexplained chest pain

in the ED: could it be panic? Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29:743–751.

214. Musey PI Jr, Kline JA. Emergency department cardiopulmonary evalua- tion of low-risk chest pain patients with self-reported stress and anxiety. J

Emerg Med. 2017;52:273–279.

215. Al-Ani M, Winchester DE. Prevalence and overlap of noncardiac conditions

in the evaluation of low-risk acute chest pain patients. Crit Pathw Cardiol.

2015;14:97–102.

216. Czarnecki A, Wang JT, Tu JV, et al. The role of primary care physician and

cardiologist follow-up for low-risk patients with chest pain after emergency

department assessment. Am Heart J. 2014;168:289–295.

217. White KS, Craft JM, Gervino EV. Anxiety and hypervigilance to cardiopul- monary sensations in non-cardiac chest pain patients with and without

psychiatric disorders. Behav Res Ther. 2010;48:394–401.

218. Burgstaller JM, Jenni BF, Steurer J, et al. Treatment efficacy for non-car- diovascular chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One.

2014;9:e104722.

219. Kisely SR, Campbell LA, Yelland MJ, et al. Psychological interven-

tions for symptomatic management of non-specific chest pain in pa- tients with normal coronary anatomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD004101.

220. Mitchell AM, Garvey JL, Chandra A, et al. Prospective multicenter study of quantitative pretest probability assessment to exclude acute coronary syn- drome for patients evaluated in emergency department chest pain units. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47:447.

221. Hoorweg BB, Willemsen RT, Cleef LE, et al. Frequency of chest pain in primary care, diagnostic tests performed and final diagnoses. Heart. 2017;103:1727–1732.

222. Glombiewski JA, Rief W, Bosner S, et al. The course of nonspecific chest pain in primary care: symptom persistence and health care usage. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:251–255.

223. Platt OS, Brambilla DJ, Rosse WF, et al. Mortality in sickle cell dis- ease. Life expectancy and risk factors for early death. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1639–1644.

224. Thomas AN, Pattison C, Serjeant GR. Causes of death in sickle-cell dis- ease in Jamaica. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;285:633–635.

225. Vichinsky EP, Styles LA, Colangelo LH, et al. Acute chest syndrome in sickle cell disease: clinical presentation and course. Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease. Blood. 1997;89:1787–1792.

226. Martin CR, Johnson CS, Cobb C, et al. Myocardial infarction in sickle cell disease. J Natl Med Assoc. 1996;88:428–432.

227. Ogunbayo GO, Misumida N, Olorunfemi O, et al. Comparison of outcomes in patients having acute myocardial infarction with versus without sickle- cell anemia. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:1768–1771.

228. Juarez-Orozco LE, Saraste A, Capodanno D, et al. Impact of a decreasing pre-test probability on the performance of diagnostic tests for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20:1198–1207.

229. Winther S, Schmidt SE, Mayrhofer T, et al. Incorporating coronary calcifica- tion into pre-test assessment of the likelihood of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:2421–2432.

230. Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Alkadhi H, et al. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and exten- sion. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:1316–1330.

231. Fordyce CB, Douglas PS, Roberts RS, et al. Identification of patients with stable chest pain deriving minimal value from noninvasive testing: the PROMISE minimal-risk tool, a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:400–408.

232. Genders TS, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG, et al. Prediction model to esti- mate presence of coronary artery disease: retrospective pooled analysis of existing cohorts. BMJ. 2012;344:e3485.

233. Lubbers M, Coenen A, Kofflard M, et al. Comprehensive cardiac CT with myocardial perfusion imaging versus functional testing in suspected coro- nary artery disease: the multicenter, randomized CRESCENT-II trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2018;11:1625–1636.

234. Lubbers M, Dedic A, Coenen A, et al. Calcium imaging and selective com- puted tomography angiography in comparison to functional testing for sus- pected coronary artery disease: the multicentre, randomized CRESCENT trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1232–1243.

235. Chang SM, Nabi F, Xu J, et al. The coronary artery calcium score and stress myocardial perfusion imaging provide independent and complementary prediction of cardiac risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1872–1882.

236. Budoff MJ, Mayrhofer T, Ferencik M, et al. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium in the PROMISE study (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) Circulation. 2017;136:1993–2005.

237. Shaw LJ, Mieres JH, Hendel RH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of exer- cise electrocardiography with or without myocardial perfusion single pho- ton emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease: results from the What Is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in Women (WOMEN) trial. Circulation. 2011;124:1239–1249.

238. Dewey M, Rief M, Martus P, et al. Evaluation of computed tomography in patients with atypical angina or chest pain clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2016;355:i5441.

239. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:2135–2144.

240. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-mul- tidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evalua- tion of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1724–1732.

241. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2324–2336.

242. Chang HJ, Lin FY, Gebow D, et al. Selective referral using CCTA versus direct referral for individuals referred to invasive coronary angiography for

e364 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

suspected CAD: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial. J Am Coll Cardiol

Img. 2019;12:1303–1312.

243. Sharma A, Coles A, Sekaran NK, et al. Stress testing versus CT angiogra-

phy in patients with diabetes and suspected coronary artery disease. J Am

Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:893–902.

244. Min JK, Koduru S, Dunning AM, et al. Coronary CT angiography versus

myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radia- tion exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6:274–283.

245. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al. Outcomes of anatomi- cal versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1291–1300.

246. SCOT-HEART InvestigatorsNewby DE, Adamson PD, et al. Coronary CT angiography and 5-year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:924–933.

247. SCOT-HEART Investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with sus- pected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): an open- label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2383–2391.

248. McKavanagh P, Lusk L, Ball PA, et al. A comparison of cardiac computer- ized tomography and exercise stress electrocardiogram test for the inves- tigation of stable chest pain: the clinical results of the CAPP randomized prospective trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16:441–448.

249. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/ PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2012;126:e354–e471.

250. Douglas PS, Garcia MJ, Haines D, et al. ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/ HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 appropriate use criteria for echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1126–1166.

251. Gurunathan S, Zacharias K, Akhtar M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a man- agement strategy based on exercise echocardiography versus exercise electrocardiography in patients presenting with suspected angina during long term follow up: A randomized study. Int J Cardiol. 2018;259:1–7.

252. Carpeggiani C, Landi P, Michelassi C, et al. Stress echocardiography posi- tivity predicts cancer death. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e007104.

253. Abdelmoneim SS, Ball CA, Mantovani F, et al. Prognostic utility of stress testing and cardiac biomarkers in menopausal women at low to intermedi- ate risk for coronary ARTery disease (SMART study): 5-year outcome. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27:542–551.

254. Cortigiani L, Urluescu ML, Coltelli M, et al. Apparent declining prognostic value of a negative stress echocardiography based on regional wall motion abnormalities in patients with normal resting left ventricular function due to the changing referral profile of the population under study. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12:e008564.

255. Gibbons RJ, Hodge DO, Berman DS, et al. Long-term outcome of pa- tients with intermediate-risk exercise electrocardiograms who do not have myocardial perfusion defects on radionuclide imaging. Circulation. 1999;100:2140–2145.

256. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Min JK, et al. Long-term mortality following normal exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT according to coronary disease risk factors. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:341–350.

257. Bourque JM, Holland BH, Watson DD, et al. Achieving an exercise work- load of > or = 10 metabolic equivalents predicts a very low risk of induc- ible ischemia: does myocardial perfusion imaging have a role? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:538–545.

258. Shaw LJ, Wilson PW, Hachamovitch R, et al. Improved near-term coronary artery disease risk classification with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2010;3:1139–1148.

259. Shaw LJ, Min JK, Hachamovitch R, et al. Nomograms for estimating coronary artery disease prognosis with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:43–52.

260. Uretsky S, Rozanski A. Long-term outcomes following a normal stress myocardial perfusion scan. J Nucl Cardiol. 2013;20:715–718.

261. Patel KK, Al Badarin F, Chan PS, et al. Randomized comparison of clinical effectiveness of pharmacologic SPECT and PET MPI in symptomatic CAD patients. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1821–1831.

262. Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Beanlands RS, et al. Prognostic value of stress myo- cardial perfusion positron emission tomography: results from a multicenter observational registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:176–184.

263. Kay J, Dorbala S, Goyal A, et al. Influence of sex on risk stratification with stress myocardial perfusion Rb-82 positron emission tomography: Results from the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) Prognosis Multicenter Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1866–1876.

264. Greenwood JP, Maredia N, Younger JF, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single-photon emission computed tomography for diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CE-MARC): a prospective trial. Lancet. 2012;379:453–460.

265. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single- photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:775–781.

266. Hamon M, Fau G, Nee G, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic per- formance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2010;12:29.

267. Jaarsma C, Leiner T, Bekkers SC, et al. Diagnostic performance of nonin- vasive myocardial perfusion imaging using single-photon emission com- puted tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of obstructive coronary artery dis- ease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1719–1728.

268. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, Wilke N, et al. Superior diagnostic performance of perfusion-cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus SPECT to de- tect coronary artery disease: the secondary endpoints of the multicenter multivendor MR-IMPACT II (Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary Artery Disease Trial) J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:61.

269. Greenwood JP, Ripley DP, Berry C, et al. Effect of care guided by cardio- vascular magnetic resonance, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, or NICE guidelines on subsequent unnecessary angiography rates: the CE-MARC 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1051–1060.

270. Nagel E, Greenwood JP, McCann GP, et al. Magnetic resonance per- fusion or fractional flow reserve in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2418–2428.

271. Knuuti J, Ballo H, Juarez-Orozco LE, et al. The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probabil- ity. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3322–3330.

272. Danad I, Raijmakers PG, Driessen RS, et al. Comparison of coronary CT angiography, SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging for diagnosis of isch- emic heart disease determined by fractional flow reserve. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:1100–1107.

273. Neglia D, Rovai D, Caselli C, et al. Detection of significant coronary artery disease by noninvasive anatomical and functional imaging. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002179.

274. Danad I, Szymonifka J, Twisk JWR, et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac imaging methods to diagnose ischaemia-causing coronary artery disease when directly compared with fractional flow reserve as a reference stan- dard: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:991–998.

275. Mieres JH, Gulati M, Bairey Merz N, et al. Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected ischemic heart disease: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;130:350–379.

276. Mark DB, Shaw L, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Prognostic value of a treadmill exer- cise score in outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:849–853.

277. Lauer MS, Pothier CE, Magid DJ, et al. An externally validated model for predicting long-term survival after exercise treadmill testing in patients with suspected coronary artery disease and a normal electrocardiogram. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:821–828.

278. Gulati M, Black HR, Shaw LJ, et al. The prognostic value of a nomogram for exercise capacity in women. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:468–475.

279. Ardestani A, Ahlberg AW, Katten DM, et al. Risk stratification using line source attenuation correction with rest/stress Tc-99m sestamibi SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:118–126.

280. van Dijk JD, Mouden M, Ottervanger JP, et al. Value of attenuation correc- tion in stress-only myocardial perfusion imaging using CZT-SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2017;24:395–401.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e365

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

281. Gutstein A, Bental T, Solodky A, et al. Prognosis of stress-only SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with prone imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2018;25:809–816.

282. Huang JY, Yen RF, Lee WC, et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy of thal- lium-201 myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomog- raphy with CT attenuation correction. J Nucl Cardiol. 2019;26:1584–1595.

283. Huang JY, Huang CK, Yen RF, et al. Diagnostic performance of attenua- tion-corrected myocardial perfusion imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1893–1898.

284. Ito S, Endo A, Okada T, et al. Comparison of CTAC and prone imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease using CZT SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:629–635.

285. Gibbons RJ, Carryer D, Liu H, et al. Use of echocardiography in outpatients with chest pain and normal resting electrocardiograms referred to Mayo Clinic Rochester. Am Heart J. 2018;196:49–55.

286. Douglas PS, De Bruyne B, Pontone G, et al. 1-Year outcomes of FFRCT- guided care in patients with suspected coronary disease: the PLATFORM study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:435–445.

287. Min JK, Leipsic J, Pencina MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012;308:1237–1245.

288. Andreini D, Modolo R, Katagiri Y, et al. Impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography on heart team treatment decision-making in patients with multivessel coronary artery dis- ease: insights from the SYNTAX III REVOLUTION trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007607.

289. Abidov A, Gallagher MJ, Chinnaiyan KM, et al. Clinical effectiveness of coronary computed tomographic angiography in the triage of patients to cardiac catheterization and revascularization after inconclusive stress test- ing: results of a 2-year prospective trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2009;16:701–713.

290. Christman MP, Bittencourt MS, Hulten E, et al. Yield of downstream tests after exercise treadmill testing: a prospective cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1264–1274.

291. Shaw LJ, Hausleiter J, Achenbach S, et al. Coronary computed tomograph- ic angiography as a gatekeeper to invasive diagnostic and surgical proce- dures: results from the multicenter CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: an International Multicenter) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2103–2114.

292. Schepis T, Gaemperli O, Koepfli P, et al. Added value of coronary ar- tery calcium score as an adjunct to gated SPECT for the evaluation of coronary artery disease in an intermediate-risk population. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1424–1430.

293. Bavishi C, Argulian E, Chatterjee S, et al. CACS and the frequency of stress-induced myocardial ischemia during MPI: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016;9:580–589.

294. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Wong ND, et al. Use of coronary calcium scanning for predicting inducible myocardial ischemia: influence of patients’ clinical presentation. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:669–679.

295. Brodov Y, Gransar H, Dey D, et al. Combined quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion and coronary artery calcium score by hybrid 82Rb PET/CT improves detection of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1345–1350.

296. Ghadri JR, Pazhenkottil AP, Nkoulou RN, et al. Very high coronary calcium score unmasks obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with normal. SPECT MPI. Heart. 2011;97:998–1003.

297. Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong EC, et al. Interrelation of coronary calcifi- cation, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomog- raphy/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008;117:1693–1700.

298. Marwick TH, Case C, Vasey C, et al. Prediction of mortality by exercise echocardiography: a strategy for combination with the Duke Treadmill Score. Circulation. 2001;103:2566–2571.

299. Sicari R, Nihoyannopoulos P, Evangelista A, et al. Stress echocardiography expert consensus statement—executive summary: European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) (a registered branch of the ESC) Eur Heart J. 2009;30:278–289.

300. Vitola JV, Wanderley MR Jr, Cerci RJ, et al. Outcome of patients with high- risk Duke Treadmill Score and normal myocardial perfusion imaging on SPECT. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:1291–1300.

301. Boiten HJ, van Domburg RT, Valkema R, et al. Eleven-year prognostic value of dobutamine stress (99m)Tc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with limited exercise capacity. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:884–889.

302. Uretsky S, Supariwala A, Gurram S, et al. The interaction of exercise ability and body mass index upon long-term outcomes among patients undergo- ing stress-rest perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. Am Heart J. 2013;166:127–133.

303. Bourque JM, Charlton GT, Holland BH, et al. Prognosis in patients achiev- ing >/=10 METS on exercise stress testing: was SPECT imaging useful? J Nucl Cardiol. 2011;18:230–237.

304. BARI 2D Study GroupFrye RL, August P, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2503–2515.

305. Arnett DK, Blumenthal R, Albert M, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;140:e596–e646.

306. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/ NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019;139:e1082–e1143.

307. De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001.

308. De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208–1217.

309. Tonino PA, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–224.

310. Bhatt DL. Assessment of stable coronary lesions. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1879–1881.

311. Suh YJ, Hong YJ, Lee HJ, et al. Accuracy of CT for selecting candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: combination with the SYNTAX score. Radiology. 2015;276:390–399.

312. Chan M, Ridley L, Dunn DJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts. Int J Cardiol. 2016;221:898–905.

313. Small GR, Yam Y, Chen L, et al. Prognostic assessment of coronary artery bypass patients with 64-slice computed tomography angiography: anatom- ical information is incremental to clinical risk prediction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2389–2395.

314. Collet C, Onuma Y, Andreini D, et al. Coronary computed tomography an- giography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3689–3698.

315. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic bur- den: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283–1291.

316. Shaw LJ, Cerqueira MD, Brooks MM, et al. Impact of left ventricular function and the extent of ischemia and scar by stress myocardial perfu- sion imaging on prognosis and therapeutic risk reduction in diabetic pa- tients with coronary artery disease: results from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial. J Nucl Cardiol. 2012;19:658–669.

317. Zellweger MJ, Fahrni G, Ritter M, et al. Prognostic value of “routine” cardiac stress imaging 5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention: the pro- spective long-term observational BASKET (Basel Stent Kosteneffektivitats Trial) LATE IMAGING study. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2014;7:615–621.

318. Zellweger MJ, Kaiser C, Jeger R, et al. Coronary artery disease pro- gression late after successful stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:793–799.

319. Zellweger MJ, Kaiser C, Brunner-La Rocca HP, et al. Value and limitations of target-vessel ischemia in predicting late clinical events after drug-elut- ing stent implantation. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:550–556.

320. Shaw LJ, Weintraub WS, Maron DJ, et al. Baseline stress myocardial perfu- sion imaging results and outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to optimal medical therapy with or without percutane- ous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2012;164:243–250.

321. Patel KK, Spertus JA, Arnold SV, et al. Ischemia on PET MPI may identify patients with improvement in angina and health status post-revasculariza- tion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1734–1736.

322. Patel KK, Spertus JA, Chan PS, et al. Extent of myocardial ischemia on positron emission tomography and survival benefit with early revasculariza- tion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1645–1654.

323. Reynolds HR, Shaw LJ, Min JK, et al. Association of sex with severity of coronary artery disease, ischemia, and symptom burden in patients with moderate or severe ischemia: secondary analysis of the ISCHEMIA ran- domized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5:1–14.

324. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al. MR-IMPACT: compari- son of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission

e366 November 30, 2021 Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Gulati et al

2021 Chest Pain Guideline Executive Summary

computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a

multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:480–489.

325. Arai AE, Schulz-Menger J, Berman D, et al. Gadobutrol-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am

Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:1536–1547.

326. Takx RA, Blomberg BA, El Aidi H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of stress

myocardial perfusion imaging compared to invasive coronary angiogra- phy with fractional flow reserve meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e002666.

327. Heitner JF, Kim RJ, Kim HW, et al. Prognostic value of vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter study with 48000 patient-years of follow-up. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4:256–264.

328. Kato S, Saito N, Nakachi T, et al. Stress perfusion coronary flow reserve versus cardiac magnetic resonance for known or suspected CAD. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:869–879.

329. Vincenti G, Masci PG, Monney P, et al. Stress perfusion CMR in pa- tients with known and suspected CAD: prognostic value and opti- mal ischemic threshold for revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2017;10:526–537.

330. Kwong RY, Ge Y, Steel K, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance stress perfu- sion imaging for evaluation of patients with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:1741–1755.

331. Taqueti VR, Hachamovitch R, Murthy VL, et al. Global coronary flow reserve is associated with adverse cardiovascular events independently of luminal angiographic severity and modifies the effect of early revascularization. Circulation. 2015;131:19–27.

332. Driessen RS, Danad I, Stuijfzand WJ, et al. Comparison of coronary com- puted tomography angiography, fractional flow reserve, and perfusion im- aging for ischemia diagnosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:161–173.

333. Patel KK, Spertus JA, Chan PS, et al. Myocardial blood flow reserve as- sessed by positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging identifies patients with a survival benefit from early revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:759–768.

334. Bom MJ, van Diemen PA, Driessen RS, et al. Prognostic value of [15O] H2O positron emission tomography-derived global and regional myocardial perfusion. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;21:777–786.

335. Knott KD, Seraphim A, Augusto JB, et al. The prognostic significance of quantitative myocardial perfusion: an artificial intelligence-based approach using perfusion mapping. Circulation. 2020;141:1282–1291.

336. Ho PM, Rumsfeld JS, Peterson PN, et al. Chest pain on exercise treadmill test predicts future cardiac hospitalizations. Clin Cardiol. 2007;30:505–510.

337. Hambrecht R, Walther C, Mobius-Winkler S, et al. Percutaneous coro- nary angioplasty compared with exercise training in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2004;

109:1371–1378.

338. Jaureguizar KV, Vicente-Campos D, Bautista LR, et al. Effect of high-inten-

sity interval versus continuous exercise training on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2016;36:96–105.

339. Barbero U, Iannaccone M, d’Ascenzo F, et al. 64 slice-coronary computed tomography sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft stenosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;216:52–57.

340. Lee SE, Chang HJ, Sung JM, et al. Effects of statins on coronary ath- erosclerotic plaques: the PARADIGM study. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2018;11:1475–1484.

341. Lee SE, Sung JM, Rizvi A, et al. Quantification of coronary atherosclero- sis in the assessment of coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:e007562.

342. Williams MC, Kwiecinski J, Doris M, et al. Low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary computed tomography angiography predicts myocar- dial infarction: results from the Multicenter SCOT-HEART Trial (Scottish Computed Tomography of the HEART) Circulation. 2020;141:1452–1462.

343. Ferencik M, Mayrhofer T, Bittner DO, et al. Use of high-risk coronary ath- erosclerotic plaque detection for risk stratification of patients with stable chest pain: a secondary analysis of the PROMISE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:144–152.

344. Taqueti VR, Solomon SD, Shah AM, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunc- tion and future risk of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:840–849.

345. Taqueti VR, Shaw LJ, Cook NR, et al. Excess cardiovascular risk in women relative to men referred for coronary angiography is associated with se- verely impaired coronary flow reserve, not obstructive disease. Circulation. 2017;135:566–577.

346. Indorkar R, Kwong RY, Romano S, et al. Global coronary flow reserve measured during stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging Is an inde- pendent predictor of adverse cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2019;12:1686–1695.

347. Zorach B, Shaw PW, Bourque J, et al. Quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging identifies reduced flow reserve in microvas- cular coronary artery disease. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2018;20:14.

348. Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ, Walsh MN, et al. Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease (INOCA): developing evidence- based therapies and research agenda for the next decade. Circulation. 2017;135:1075–1092.

349. AlBadri A, Bairy Merz CN, Johnson BD, et al. Impact of abnormal coro- nary reactivity on long-term clinical outcomes in women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:684–693.

350. AlBadri A, Sharif B, Wei J, et al. Intracoronary bolus injection versus intravenous infusion of adenosine for assessment of coronary flow velocity reserve in women with signs and symptoms of myocardial isch- emia and no obstructive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2018;11:2125–2127.

351. Ford TJ, Stanley B, Sidik N, et al. 1-Year Outcomes of Angina Management Guided by Invasive Coronary Function Testing (CorMicA). J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2020;13:33–45.

352. Ford TJ, Corcoran D, Sidik N, et al. Coronary microvascular dysfunc- tion: assessment of both structure and function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:584–586.

Circulation. 2021;144:e336–e367. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030

November 30, 2021 e367

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on December 5, 2021

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: