The Journal of Family Practice

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

Clinical and dermoscopic features were consistent with a sporadic angiokeratoma, a benign ectasia of vessels associated with keratinization. Diagnosis was confirmed with shave biopsy.

Sporadic angiokeratomas are common and increase with age. They may occur anywhere on the skin, including mucous membranes. Dermoscopy of an angiokeratoma will reveal vascular lacunae—small pools of red or near black blood—as well as keratin scale, which appears as a white veil or shiny white lines.¹

Other subtypes of angiokeratomas may be more widespread, including angiokeratoma of Fordyce, which manifests on the vulva and scrotum (usually in adulthood), or angiokeratoma circumscriptum, which occurs congenitally. There are some rare syndromic conditions associated with widespread angiokeratomas, such as Fabry disease.

The differential diagnosis for this solitary, vascular-appearing papule or plaque includes cherry angioma, pyogenic granuloma, and melanoma. Over time, the keratinization may increase, and lesions may look like a wart. A punch or shave biopsy will distinguish an angiokeratoma from other types of lesions. When a lesion is small enough, it may also be curative.

Angiokeratomas do not require treatment. However, because they may occur in cosmetically sensitive areas or bleed when traumatized, remedies are often sought. Excision, cryotherapy, electrocautery, and vascular laser are all possible treatments.

In this case, the patient was treated with curettage and light electrocautery, which left a small scar.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Clinical and dermoscopic features were consistent with a sporadic angiokeratoma, a benign ectasia of vessels associated with keratinization. Diagnosis was confirmed with shave biopsy.

Sporadic angiokeratomas are common and increase with age. They may occur anywhere on the skin, including mucous membranes. Dermoscopy of an angiokeratoma will reveal vascular lacunae—small pools of red or near black blood—as well as keratin scale, which appears as a white veil or shiny white lines.¹

Other subtypes of angiokeratomas may be more widespread, including angiokeratoma of Fordyce, which manifests on the vulva and scrotum (usually in adulthood), or angiokeratoma circumscriptum, which occurs congenitally. There are some rare syndromic conditions associated with widespread angiokeratomas, such as Fabry disease.

The differential diagnosis for this solitary, vascular-appearing papule or plaque includes cherry angioma, pyogenic granuloma, and melanoma. Over time, the keratinization may increase, and lesions may look like a wart. A punch or shave biopsy will distinguish an angiokeratoma from other types of lesions. When a lesion is small enough, it may also be curative.

Angiokeratomas do not require treatment. However, because they may occur in cosmetically sensitive areas or bleed when traumatized, remedies are often sought. Excision, cryotherapy, electrocautery, and vascular laser are all possible treatments.

In this case, the patient was treated with curettage and light electrocautery, which left a small scar.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Clinical and dermoscopic features were consistent with a sporadic angiokeratoma, a benign ectasia of vessels associated with keratinization. Diagnosis was confirmed with shave biopsy.

Sporadic angiokeratomas are common and increase with age. They may occur anywhere on the skin, including mucous membranes. Dermoscopy of an angiokeratoma will reveal vascular lacunae—small pools of red or near black blood—as well as keratin scale, which appears as a white veil or shiny white lines.¹

Other subtypes of angiokeratomas may be more widespread, including angiokeratoma of Fordyce, which manifests on the vulva and scrotum (usually in adulthood), or angiokeratoma circumscriptum, which occurs congenitally. There are some rare syndromic conditions associated with widespread angiokeratomas, such as Fabry disease.

The differential diagnosis for this solitary, vascular-appearing papule or plaque includes cherry angioma, pyogenic granuloma, and melanoma. Over time, the keratinization may increase, and lesions may look like a wart. A punch or shave biopsy will distinguish an angiokeratoma from other types of lesions. When a lesion is small enough, it may also be curative.

Angiokeratomas do not require treatment. However, because they may occur in cosmetically sensitive areas or bleed when traumatized, remedies are often sought. Excision, cryotherapy, electrocautery, and vascular laser are all possible treatments.

In this case, the patient was treated with curettage and light electrocautery, which left a small scar.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

The patient’s history and presentation, as well as a positive varicella zoster virus (VZV) culture of vesicular fluid, led to a diagnosis of disseminated herpes zoster (DHZ). The patient’s laboratory studies were remarkable for mild lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver function tests. Shave and punch biopsies of the lesion showed ballooning epithelial necrosis with multinucleated giant cells.

DHZ is characterized by more than 20 vesicles outside of a primary or adjacent dermatome and is caused by extensive reactivation of VZV. DHZ is most often encountered in immunocompromised patients.¹ Untreated DHZ can lead to encephalitis, myelitis, nerve palsies, pneumonitis, hepatitis, and ocular complications.

Diagnosis is usually made clinically and confirmed by a polymerase chain reaction test, direct fluorescent antibody testing, or viral culture.² In immunocompetent patients, uncomplicated DHZ is treated with oral acyclovir 800 mg 5 times daily, valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily, or famciclovir 500 mg 3 times daily for 7 days. Hospital admission for intravenous acyclovir is recommended for immunocompromised patients, especially those with internal organ involvement, such as hepatitis or encephalitis.³

Early treatment is imperative to avoid life-threatening complications. Active herpes zoster lesions are infectious by contact with vesicular fluid until they dry and crust over. Patients should be instructed to avoid contact with susceptible people, including those who are immunocompromised, babies who have not received their varicella vaccine, and pregnant women. It is important to keep DHZ on the differential—especially in an immunosuppressed patient with a diffuse vesicular rash—as it can lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

Our patient was treated with oral valacyclovir 1 g tid for 10 days and he improved without developing systemic symptoms.

‌

Image courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD. Text courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD, and Matthew F. Helm, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Nanjiba Nawaz, BA, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey.

The patient’s history and presentation, as well as a positive varicella zoster virus (VZV) culture of vesicular fluid, led to a diagnosis of disseminated herpes zoster (DHZ). The patient’s laboratory studies were remarkable for mild lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver function tests. Shave and punch biopsies of the lesion showed ballooning epithelial necrosis with multinucleated giant cells.

DHZ is characterized by more than 20 vesicles outside of a primary or adjacent dermatome and is caused by extensive reactivation of VZV. DHZ is most often encountered in immunocompromised patients.¹ Untreated DHZ can lead to encephalitis, myelitis, nerve palsies, pneumonitis, hepatitis, and ocular complications.

Diagnosis is usually made clinically and confirmed by a polymerase chain reaction test, direct fluorescent antibody testing, or viral culture.² In immunocompetent patients, uncomplicated DHZ is treated with oral acyclovir 800 mg 5 times daily, valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily, or famciclovir 500 mg 3 times daily for 7 days. Hospital admission for intravenous acyclovir is recommended for immunocompromised patients, especially those with internal organ involvement, such as hepatitis or encephalitis.³

Early treatment is imperative to avoid life-threatening complications. Active herpes zoster lesions are infectious by contact with vesicular fluid until they dry and crust over. Patients should be instructed to avoid contact with susceptible people, including those who are immunocompromised, babies who have not received their varicella vaccine, and pregnant women. It is important to keep DHZ on the differential—especially in an immunosuppressed patient with a diffuse vesicular rash—as it can lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

Our patient was treated with oral valacyclovir 1 g tid for 10 days and he improved without developing systemic symptoms.

‌

Image courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD. Text courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD, and Matthew F. Helm, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Nanjiba Nawaz, BA, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey.

The patient’s history and presentation, as well as a positive varicella zoster virus (VZV) culture of vesicular fluid, led to a diagnosis of disseminated herpes zoster (DHZ). The patient’s laboratory studies were remarkable for mild lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and elevated liver function tests. Shave and punch biopsies of the lesion showed ballooning epithelial necrosis with multinucleated giant cells.

DHZ is characterized by more than 20 vesicles outside of a primary or adjacent dermatome and is caused by extensive reactivation of VZV. DHZ is most often encountered in immunocompromised patients.¹ Untreated DHZ can lead to encephalitis, myelitis, nerve palsies, pneumonitis, hepatitis, and ocular complications.

Diagnosis is usually made clinically and confirmed by a polymerase chain reaction test, direct fluorescent antibody testing, or viral culture.² In immunocompetent patients, uncomplicated DHZ is treated with oral acyclovir 800 mg 5 times daily, valacyclovir 1 g 3 times daily, or famciclovir 500 mg 3 times daily for 7 days. Hospital admission for intravenous acyclovir is recommended for immunocompromised patients, especially those with internal organ involvement, such as hepatitis or encephalitis.³

Early treatment is imperative to avoid life-threatening complications. Active herpes zoster lesions are infectious by contact with vesicular fluid until they dry and crust over. Patients should be instructed to avoid contact with susceptible people, including those who are immunocompromised, babies who have not received their varicella vaccine, and pregnant women. It is important to keep DHZ on the differential—especially in an immunosuppressed patient with a diffuse vesicular rash—as it can lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

Our patient was treated with oral valacyclovir 1 g tid for 10 days and he improved without developing systemic symptoms.

‌

Image courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD. Text courtesy of Christen B. Samaan, MD, and Matthew F. Helm, MD, Department of Dermatology, and Nanjiba Nawaz, BA, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey.

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease: preventive medication. Published October 12, 2021. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/document/draft-evidence-review/aspirin-use-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-preventive-medication
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Figure 4. Number of deaths, percentage of total deaths, and age-adjusted death rates for the 10 leading causes of death in 2019: United States, 2018 and 2019. In: Data Brief 395: Mortality in the United States 2019. Published December 2020. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db395-tables-508.pdf
3. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Heart risk calculator. Updated November 12, 2017. Accessed October 25, 2021. www.cvriskcalculator.com/

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.¹ Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.¹

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.²

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).³

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.⁴Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.⁵ The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.⁶ For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.¹ Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.¹

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.²

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).³

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.⁴Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.⁵ The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.⁶ For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

General exercise offers benefit …at least for chronic LBP

A 2017 systematic review of 4 systematic reviews and 50 RCTs (122 total trials) evaluated general exercise vs usual care for acute (< 4 weeks), subacute (4 to 12 weeks), or chronic (≥ 12 weeks) LBP with or without radiculopathy in adults.¹ Exercise was not consistently associated with decreased pain in acute or subacute LBP. For chronic LBP, 3 RCTs (n = 200) associated exercise with decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –9.2 on a 0-100 point visual acuity scale; 95% CI, –16.0 to –2.4) and improved function (WMD = –12.4 on the Oswestry Disability Index; 95% CI, –23.0 to –1.7) at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months). This effect was found to decrease at long-term (≥ 1 year) follow-up (WMD for pain = –4.9; 95% CI, –10.5 to 0.6 and WMD for function = –3.2; 95% CI, 6.0 to –0.4). In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (n = 1992) included in this systematic review, exercise was associated with a lower likelihood of work disability (odds ratio, 0.66; CI, 0.48 to 0.92) at 12 months.¹

Yoga, Pilates, and motor control exercise: Your results may vary

Several reviews have explored the effects of specific exercise modalities on LBP. A 2017 meta-analysis of 9 RCTs in the United States, United Kingdom, and India of nonpregnant adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic LBP (N = 810) found that yoga (any tradition of yoga with a physical component) vs no exercise demonstrated a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in pain at 3 to 4 months (mean difference [MD] = –4.6 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –7.0 to –2.1), 6 months (MD = –7.8; 95% CI, –13.4 to –2.3), and 12 months (MD = –5.4; 95% CI, –14.5 to –3.7). Clinically significant pain benefit was considered a change of 15 or more points.²

A 2015 meta-analysis of RCTs (10 trials; N = 510) comparing the effects of Pilates (a form of body conditioning involving isometric contractions and core exercises focusing on stability) vs minimal intervention on chronic (> 12 weeks) LBP in nonpregnant adults (≥ 16 years old) found low-quality evidence for decreased pain at short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months; MD = –14.1 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –18.9 to –9.2). There was moderate-quality evidence for decreased pain at intermediate follow-up (3-12 months; MD = –10.5; 95% CI, –18.5 to –2.6).³

A 2016 systematic review evaluated motor control exercise (MCE; a form of exercise that focuses on trunk muscle control and coordination) in adults (≥ 16 years old) with chronic LBP (≥ 12 weeks). There was low- to moderate-quality evidence that, compared to minimal intervention, MCE decreases pain at short-term (≤ 6 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –10.0 on a 0-100 point scale; 95% CI, –15.7 to –4.4), intermediate (6-12 months; 4 RCTs; MD = –12.6; 95% CI, –20.5 to –4.7), and long-term follow-up (> 12 months; 3 RCTs; MD = –13.0; 95% CI, –18.5 to –7.4). When comparing MCE to general exercise, there were no clinically significant differences in pain or disability at intermediate and long-term follow-up.⁴Common limitations included heterogeneity of intervention methodology, inability to blind results, inability to assess cointerventions, and in some cases, small sample sizes of trials.

Recommendations from others

The 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) clinical practice guideline on noninvasive treatments for LBP does not recommend exercise therapy in acute or subacute LBP; recommended therapies include superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation.⁵ The ACP recommends general exercise, yoga, tai chi, or MCE for chronic LBP, in addition to multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, progressive relaxation, biofeedback, laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation.

The 2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline on treatment of LBP notes insufficient evidence for benefit of clinician-guided exercise therapy in acute LBP.⁶ For chronic LBP, clinician-directed exercise, yoga, tai chi, or Pilates is recommended.

Editor’s takeaway

Convincing evidence demonstrates that exercise modestly improves chronic LBP—but only modestly (4% to 15%), and not in acute LBP. This small magnitude of effect may disappoint expectations, but exercise remains among our better interventions for this common chronic problem. Few—if any—interventions have proven better, and exercise has beneficial side effects, a low cost, and widespread availability.

This month’s cover story, “A 4-pronged approach to foster healthy aging in older adults,” by Wilson and colleagues (page 376) provides a wealth of information about aspects of healthy aging that we should consider when we see our older patients. After reading this manuscript, I was a bit overwhelmed by the amount of information presented and, more so, by the thought of attempting to incorporate into my practice all of the possible screenings and interventions available to help older adults improve and maintain their health.

There is no debate about the importance of issues such as diet, exercise and mobility, mental health and cognition, vision and hearing, and strong social connections for maintaining health as we age. The difficulty comes in deciding how to spend our limited time with older patients during office encounters. Most older adults have several chronic diseases that need our attention, and they often have various medications that need to be monitored for effectiveness and safety, which can be time consuming. And, of course, we need to take time to screen for cardiovascular risk and cancer, too. Where to start?

Dr. Wilson’s solution makes sense to me: Take advantage of the annual wellness visit to discuss diet, exercise, mental health, vision and hearing, and social relationships. I am not so sure, however, if using formal screening instruments is the best way to do this, especially since there is no strong research that demonstrates improved patient-relevant outcomes using screening instruments, except, perhaps, for periodically screening for anxiety and depression.

It may be effective to use the “chat technique” and ask open-ended questions, such as: How are things going for you?

It may be as effective to use what I will call the “chat technique.” Start with open-ended questions and statements, such as: “How are things going for you?” “Tell me about your family.” “What do you do for physical activity?” and “How has your mood been lately?”

An excellent complement to the chat technique is the goal-setting approach championed by geriatrician and family physician Jim Mold.¹ His premise is that health itself is not the most important goal for most people, but rather a means to an end. That end is very specific to every person. An elderly, frail woman’s main life goal, for example, might be to remain in her own home for as long as possible or to live long enough to attend her great-grandson’s wedding.

Goal setting provides an excellent context for true shared decision-making. I agree with Dr. Wilson’s closing statement:

“As family physicians, it is important to capitalize on longitudinal relationships with patients and begin educating younger patients using this multidimensional framework to promote living ‘a productive and meaningful life’at any age.”

This month’s cover story, “A 4-pronged approach to foster healthy aging in older adults,” by Wilson and colleagues (page 376) provides a wealth of information about aspects of healthy aging that we should consider when we see our older patients. After reading this manuscript, I was a bit overwhelmed by the amount of information presented and, more so, by the thought of attempting to incorporate into my practice all of the possible screenings and interventions available to help older adults improve and maintain their health.

There is no debate about the importance of issues such as diet, exercise and mobility, mental health and cognition, vision and hearing, and strong social connections for maintaining health as we age. The difficulty comes in deciding how to spend our limited time with older patients during office encounters. Most older adults have several chronic diseases that need our attention, and they often have various medications that need to be monitored for effectiveness and safety, which can be time consuming. And, of course, we need to take time to screen for cardiovascular risk and cancer, too. Where to start?

Dr. Wilson’s solution makes sense to me: Take advantage of the annual wellness visit to discuss diet, exercise, mental health, vision and hearing, and social relationships. I am not so sure, however, if using formal screening instruments is the best way to do this, especially since there is no strong research that demonstrates improved patient-relevant outcomes using screening instruments, except, perhaps, for periodically screening for anxiety and depression.

It may be effective to use the “chat technique” and ask open-ended questions, such as: How are things going for you?

It may be as effective to use what I will call the “chat technique.” Start with open-ended questions and statements, such as: “How are things going for you?” “Tell me about your family.” “What do you do for physical activity?” and “How has your mood been lately?”

An excellent complement to the chat technique is the goal-setting approach championed by geriatrician and family physician Jim Mold.¹ His premise is that health itself is not the most important goal for most people, but rather a means to an end. That end is very specific to every person. An elderly, frail woman’s main life goal, for example, might be to remain in her own home for as long as possible or to live long enough to attend her great-grandson’s wedding.

Goal setting provides an excellent context for true shared decision-making. I agree with Dr. Wilson’s closing statement:

“As family physicians, it is important to capitalize on longitudinal relationships with patients and begin educating younger patients using this multidimensional framework to promote living ‘a productive and meaningful life’at any age.”

This month’s cover story, “A 4-pronged approach to foster healthy aging in older adults,” by Wilson and colleagues (page 376) provides a wealth of information about aspects of healthy aging that we should consider when we see our older patients. After reading this manuscript, I was a bit overwhelmed by the amount of information presented and, more so, by the thought of attempting to incorporate into my practice all of the possible screenings and interventions available to help older adults improve and maintain their health.

There is no debate about the importance of issues such as diet, exercise and mobility, mental health and cognition, vision and hearing, and strong social connections for maintaining health as we age. The difficulty comes in deciding how to spend our limited time with older patients during office encounters. Most older adults have several chronic diseases that need our attention, and they often have various medications that need to be monitored for effectiveness and safety, which can be time consuming. And, of course, we need to take time to screen for cardiovascular risk and cancer, too. Where to start?

Dr. Wilson’s solution makes sense to me: Take advantage of the annual wellness visit to discuss diet, exercise, mental health, vision and hearing, and social relationships. I am not so sure, however, if using formal screening instruments is the best way to do this, especially since there is no strong research that demonstrates improved patient-relevant outcomes using screening instruments, except, perhaps, for periodically screening for anxiety and depression.

It may be effective to use the “chat technique” and ask open-ended questions, such as: How are things going for you?

It may be as effective to use what I will call the “chat technique.” Start with open-ended questions and statements, such as: “How are things going for you?” “Tell me about your family.” “What do you do for physical activity?” and “How has your mood been lately?”

An excellent complement to the chat technique is the goal-setting approach championed by geriatrician and family physician Jim Mold.¹ His premise is that health itself is not the most important goal for most people, but rather a means to an end. That end is very specific to every person. An elderly, frail woman’s main life goal, for example, might be to remain in her own home for as long as possible or to live long enough to attend her great-grandson’s wedding.

Goal setting provides an excellent context for true shared decision-making. I agree with Dr. Wilson’s closing statement:

“As family physicians, it is important to capitalize on longitudinal relationships with patients and begin educating younger patients using this multidimensional framework to promote living ‘a productive and meaningful life’at any age.”