Chest pain triage in primary care

Also known as Chest pain assessment · Stable chest pain triage · Angina evaluation

GP-fellowship guide to chest pain triage in primary care: the five-domain differential, the history discriminators that matter, Marburg Heart Score rule-out performance in primary-care validation, high-sensitivity troponin pathways and what rule-out means, NICE CG95's CTCA-first strategy versus functional imaging, non-cardiac causes managed with honest framing (reflux trial, musculoskeletal NSAIDs, anxiety), red flags mandating emergency transfer, and the safety-netting and documentation that make discharged patients safe.

high17 referencesUpdated 22 Aug 20269 min readVerification in progress

Practise this topic

Key points

Most primary-care chest pain is not cardiac: in a Swiss cohort of 24,620 consultations, 672 chest pain cases occurred and 44.6% were chest wall syndrome.^[1]
The Marburg Heart Score adds to clinical judgement for ruling out coronary disease: in 832 primary-care patients, MHS triage improved specificity over unaided GP judgement by 11.6% while keeping sensitivity similar.^[4]
High-sensitivity troponin pathways rule out MI fast: troponin I below 6 ng/L with less than 4 ng/L rise at 45-120 minutes gave a 99.5% negative predictive value and 0.2% 30-day risk in 22,651 patients — but troponin rules out MI, not stable coronary disease.^[8]
NICE CG95 abandoned formal pre-test probability calculation: no testing for non-anginal pain; CTCA first for typical or atypical angina; perfusion imaging only when functional significance is uncertain.^[6]^[7]

Overview

Chest pain is one of the highest-stakes presentations in general practice: common enough to meet weekly, dangerous enough that a single missed acute coronary syndrome changes a life. GPs currently refer 40-70% of presenting chest pain to emergency departments, and only 10-20% of those referrals turn out to be acute coronary syndromes — the gap between referral volume and diagnostic yield is where this topic lives.^[2] The task is bidirectional: never miss the dangerous, and stop over-investigating the benign.

References17Show

[1]Verdon F, Burnand B, Herzig L, Junod M, Pécoud A, Favrat B Chest wall syndrome among primary care patients: a cohort study. BMC Fam Pract, 2007.PMID 17850647
[2]Verdon F, Herzig L, Burnand B, Bischoff T, Pécoud A, et al. Chest pain in daily practice: occurrence, causes and management. Swiss Med Wkly, 2008.PMID 18561039
[3]Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, Mark DB, Al-Khalidi HR, et al. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med, 2015.PMID 25773919
[4]Haasenritter J, Donner-Banzhoff N, Bösner S Chest pain for coronary heart disease in general practice: clinical judgement and a clinical decision rule. Br J Gen Pract, 2015.PMID 26500322
[5]Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sheng S, Baloch KN, Daniels MR, et al. Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Anatomic Versus Functional Diagnostic Testing Strategies in Symptomatic Patients With Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the PROMISE Randomized Trial. Circulation, 2016.PMID 27143676
[6]Timmis A, Roobottom CA National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updates the stable chest pain guideline with radical changes to the diagnostic paradigm. Heart, 2017.PMID 28446550
[7]Kelion AD, Nicol ED The rationale for the primacy of coronary CT angiography in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline (CG95) for the investigation of chest pain of recent onset. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr, 2018.PMID 30269897
[8]Neumann JT, Twerenbold R, Ojeda F, Sörensen NA, Chapman AR, et al. Application of High-Sensitivity Troponin in Suspected Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med, 2019.PMID 31242362
[9]Williams MC, Kwiecinski J, Doris M, McElhinney P, D'Souza MS, et al. Low-Attenuation Noncalcified Plaque on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography Predicts Myocardial Infarction: Results From the Multicenter SCOT-HEART Trial (Scottish Computed Tomography of the HEART). Circulation, 2020.PMID 32174130
[10]Singh T, Bing R, Dweck MR, van Beek EJR, Mills NL, et al. Exercise Electrocardiography and Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Patients With Suspected Stable Angina Pectoris: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized SCOT-HEART Trial. JAMA Cardiol, 2020.PMID 32492104
[11]Manten A, De Clercq L, Rietveld RP, Lucassen WAM, Moll van Charante EP, Harskamp RE Evaluation of the Marburg Heart Score and INTERCHEST score compared to current telephone triage for chest pain in out-of-hours primary care. Neth Heart J, 2023.PMID 36580267
[12]van den Bulk S, Petrus AHJ, Willemsen RTA, Boogers MJ, Meeder JG, et al. Ruling out acute coronary syndrome in primary care with a clinical decision rule and a capillary, high-sensitive troponin I point of care test: study protocol of a diagnostic RCT in the Netherlands (POB HELP). BMJ Open, 2023.PMID 37290947
[13]Druilhe L, Creusier L, Pasco J, Eloi J, Furet V, et al. Evaluating the Efficacy of the Marburg Heart Score to Triage Patients Presenting With Chest Pain in an Emergency Department: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study. Emerg Med Int, 2025.PMID 40432912
[14]Avigdor L, Williams SE, Guimaraes AR, Wood K, Ramsay J, et al. Development of coronary artery disease in patients with initially normal coronary arteries in the SCOT-HEART trial. Eur Radiol, 2026.PMID 41781727
[15]Manten A, Melessen IMB, Himmelreich JCL, Moll van Charante EP, Harskamp RE Marburg Heart Score and INTERCHEST score for telephone triage of acute chest pain: a prospective, diagnostic accuracy study in out-of-hours primary care. BMJ Open, 2026.PMID 41946552
[16]Mahler SA, Ashburn NP, Villenthi A, Pearson DA, Pugh HD, et al. Validation of a 0/2-Hour Point-Of-Care High Sensitivity Troponin Algorithm: A Multisite US Study. Acad Emerg Med, 2026.PMID 42470147
[17]Capodifoglio S, De Iuliis V Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care high-sensitivity troponin algorithms for emergency department rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J, 2026.PMID 42481217