Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 14:16:e23.
doi: 10.15420/usc.2022.10. eCollection 2022.

Contemporary Risk Stratification of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Affiliations
Review

Contemporary Risk Stratification of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Gurleen Kaur et al. US Cardiol. .

Abstract

Chest pain is one of the most common presenting concerns of patients seeking care in the emergency department, and the underlying etiology can range from acute coronary syndrome to various other non-cardiac causes. Initial evaluation should focus on characterizing symptoms and identifying risk factors, but further risk stratification using clinical decision pathways and biomarkers (cardiac troponin) is essential. The 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain represent the first ever guidelines for the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. The contemporary risk stratification methods described in these guidelines allow for the identification of patient subgroups: patients who do not require further testing, patients who should proceed directly to the cath lab, and patients who will benefit from further anatomic or functional testing. In this review, we describe contemporary risk stratification methods for acute coronary syndrome and summarize the recommendations put forth by the guidelines.

Keywords: Chest pain; acute coronary syndrome; clinical decision pathway; coronary CT angiography; coronary artery disease; high sensitivity-troponin; stress testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: RB receives research support from Amgen and Novartis, and serves as a consultant for Silence Therapeutics, Novartis, Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Roivant Sciences, Star Therapeutics, and Cano Health. PL serves as a consultant for Siemens, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Quidel Cardiovascular, Ortho Diagnostics, and Pathfast. MG is on the US Cardiology Review editorial board; this did not influence peer review. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. Contemporary Risk Stratification of Acute Chest Pain
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Factors to Consider When Choosing the Right Diagnostic Test (Anatomical Versus Functional)

References

    1. Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2022 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;145:e153–639. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001052. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2231–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e139–228. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Libby P. Mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes and their implications for therapy. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2004–13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1216063. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez F, Harrington RA. Management of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:452–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1607714. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources