An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. METHODS: This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-138) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Prevalence of airflow obstruction in patients attending a rapid access chest pain clinic

SummaryBackgroundMany UK hospitals have set-up specialised chest pain clinics to deal promptly and efficiently with cases of possible cardiac chest pain. It is possible that a proportion of patients attending these clinics will have a respiratory cause for their chest pain, or respiratory disease in addition to their cardiac pain. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of airflow obstruction, ischaemic heart disease and dual pathology in such patients.MethodsSpirometry was performed on patients referred to a rapid access chest pain clinic over a 12-month period (target population of 400 patients). The main outcome measure was the prevalence of airflow obstruction (defined using spirometry), ischaemic heart disease and dual pathology.Results405 subjects participated in the study. Abnormal spirometry was detected in 21% of patients (n=85). Airflow obstruction was the predominant lung function abnormality and was detected in 60 patients. Ischaemic heart disease was diagnosed in 21% of patients (n=85). Dual pathology was found in 4% of patients (n=17).ConclusionsPrevious studies have reported a link between impaired lung function and future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This study suggests that airflow obstruction is an important alternative differential diagnosis in patients referred to a rapid access chest pain clinic. The identification of abnormal spirometry may help to better risk-stratify patients for future cardiovascular events and allow interventions to be instituted