Chest Pain in the ED: Is there an opportunity to ease the burden?

The hard part is implementing the decision, not making it.

– Guy Kawasaki

The current pandemic has provided a forceful reminder of the central role emergency departments play in the assessment and delivery of urgent critical care to patients. The responsibility to differentiate quickly and efficiently the high-risk from the routine, with care and respect, has always been a herculean task. This has now been compounded in complexity as emergency departments (EDs) have adapted to serve and accommodate COVID-19 patients in addition to the constant flow of patients who come to EDs with presentations unrelated to the pandemic.

Assessing patients with chest pain has always been, and continues to be, a frequent and vital undertaking by ED clinicians. Chest pain is the second most common reason for presentation to the ED, amounting to more than 7 million annual visits in the US. History and physical exam often are insufficient to rule in or rule out coronary disease as a cause of chest pain, and hence the task of differentiating a patient with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from one with less pressing cardiac or non-cardiac issues remains a challenge.

We know that only a small percentage of chest pain presentations to EDs in fact represent ACS, but if this diagnosis is missed mortality rates are doubled. The liability of a missed ACS diagnosis can be substantial; in fact, misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis for patients presenting with chest pain are among the top reasons for medical malpractice claims against ED clinicians.

So how do clinicians maximize their ability to make the right treatment decisions in such a time-strapped, high-stakes scenario?

ED clinicians have long relied on non-invasive testing options such as electrocardiograms (ECG) or blood levels of cardiac enzymes to diagnose or rule out ACS. When these tests appear normal in patients presenting with suspected ACS, non-invasive cardiac stress testing may be used as a second step. Unfortunately, stress testing often requires hospitalization or prolonged ED stays, and has notoriously low sensitivity and specificity.

This ineffectiveness of current approaches is exactly the reason that many EDs are shifting toward coronary CTA rather than stress testing for chest pain patients. With a sensitivity near 99%, clinicians can confidently rule out CAD in many patients. Interestingly, hospitals increasing their use of coronary CTA in the ED setting are reporting that the majority of these ED-acquired coronary CTAs are free of concerning findings. This assessment enables clinicians to confidently discharge such patients, rather than admitting them for unnecessary inpatient care.

When CAD is found by the coronary CTA, sites are using FFRCT to further inform clinical decisions. With an ED-compatible turnaround time of less than 2 hours for STAT cases, the FFRCT assessment of lesion-specific physiology can be utilized within an ED’s existing workflow.

Determining the right test and treatment for a patient presenting with chest pain in an ED setting is difficult. Risks are high, yet the percentage of cases warranting further intervention due to proven ACS is low. While choosing CTA + FFRCT makes clinical, operational, and financial sense, implementing and optimizing that practice change in the ED will require concerted efforts to ensure each patient has access to the most informative and complete treatment pathway.

It is time to move beyond the current standard. Any familiarity, and perhaps misplaced comfort, with a sub-optimal pathway should be replaced with a drive to change clinical practice and provide the best cardiac care available to patients. In this case, that is coronary CTA + FFRCT.

— A perspective from HeartFlow Chief Medical Officer, Campbell Rogers, MD
Bio | LinkedIn

Contact Us

*Required fields

Request the HeartFlow Analysis Near You

If you would like to request to have the HeartFlow Analysis available at a location near you, please submit your information below with details of the institution. We will share this information with the institution, but it will not guarantee HeartFlow will become available.

*Required fields

残念ながら、GDPR 規制により、この Web フォームを通じて求人への応募やキャリアに関する問い合わせを受け付けることはできません。弊社を通じてお申込みください 採用ページ. ご関心をお寄せいただきありがとうございます!


HeartFlow FFRCT 分析は、有資格の臨床医による臨床的に安定した症状のある冠状動脈疾患患者への使用を目的とした個別化された心臓検査です。 HeartFlow Analysis によって提供される情報は、資格のある臨床医が患者の病歴、症状、その他の診断検査、および臨床医の専門的判断と組み合わせて使用​​することを目的としています。


さらに質問がある場合は、このメッセージを閉じてフォームに記入するか、サポート チームにお電話ください。: 877.478.3569.

The HeartFlow FFRCT Analysis is a personalized cardiac test indicated for use in clinically stable symptomatic patients with coronary artery disease by qualified clinicians. The information provided by the HeartFlow Analysis is intended to be used by qualified clinicians in conjunction with the patient’s history, symptoms, and other diagnostic tests, as well as the clinician’s professional judgement.

For additional indication information about the HeartFlow Analysis, please visit

If you have additional questions, close out of this message to complete our form or call our support team: 877.478.3569.

Please apply for research grants through our online submission form.

Unfortunately, we cannot take job applications or career inquiries through this web form due to GDPR regulations. Please apply through our Careers Page. Thank you for your interest!

Campbell Rogers, M.D., F.A.C.C.

Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer

Campbell brings a wealth of experience to HeartFlow, where he serves as the Chief Medical Officer. Prior to joining HeartFlow, he was the Chief Scientific Officer and Global Head of Research and Development at Cordis Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, where he was responsible for leading investments and research in cardiovascular devices. Prior to Cordis, he was Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard-M.I.T. Division of Health Sciences and Technology, and Director of the Cardiac Catheterization and Experimental Cardiovascular Interventional Laboratories at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He served as Principal Investigator for numerous interventional cardiology device, diagnostic, and pharmacology trials, is the author of numerous journal articles, chapters, and books in the area of coronary artery and other cardiovascular diseases, and was the recipient of research grant awards from the NIH and AHA.

He received his A.B. from Harvard College and his M.D. from Harvard Medical School.