Current clinical practice for patients presenting to the emergency department with a resolved episode of chest pain and no electrographic or biomarker abnormalities is to conduct routine noninvasive testing, in accordance with American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines. The rationale is to further reduce the risk of missing a myocardial infarction, a major source of suits filed against emergency department physicians. Patients with negative stress test results may be reassured, with low event rates in the subsequent 30 days. Patients with positive stress test results have higher 30-day event rates, and a small fraction undergo revascularization procedures. Despite this endorsement, open questions remain. Does our current practice lead to the stenting of asymptomatic patients in the inevitable cases where the inciting pain was noncardiac? And, most importantly, does our practice improve outcomes? Randomized trials evaluating routine stress testing in other contexts have yielded negative results, despite diagnosing significant coronary artery disease. Population data suggest that our current practice may be increasing the diagnosis of coronary artery disease and the rate of intervention while failing to decrease rates of myocardial infarction. We propose that randomized trials be conducted to evaluate whether any testing is better than no further intervention. Data from such an evidence-based approach has the potential to reverse our current practice.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 9
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 1
The Rational Clinical Examination
Evidence Summary and Review 2
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.