You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence update for stable chest pain: poorly reasoned and risky for patients
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 14 June 2017
    The true value of the NICE guidance
    • Philip D Adamson, Clinical Research Fellow University of Edinburgh/NHS Lothian
    • Other Contributors:
      • David E Newby, BHF Professor of Cardiology

    We read with interest the Editorial on the recently updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for the assessment of suspected stable angina (1). The authors raise some salient points regarding the importance of careful history taking, the vexed question of the exercise ECG and the relative merits of the myriad non-invasive tests for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD). However, we believe they have adopted an unnecessarily alarmist tone in their criticisms and feel obliged to respond to several issues.
    Although they suggest that the assessment of pretest probability (PTP) has been disregarded, this process has merely been made implicit rather than explicit. The guidelines emphasise the pivotal importance of the clinical history and, in the setting of suspected angina, the nature of the presenting symptoms is the dominant predictor of CAD. Existing risk tables (2) show that either typical or atypical angina essentially guarantees a PTP of CAD ≥ 10%, the threshold warranting further investigation in the earlier NICE guideline. The residual clinical risk seen in patients with non-anginal symptoms is best addressed through cardiovascular screening approaches with an emphasis of lifestyle modification and primary prevention.
    Second, in arguing against the cost-effectiveness of the new approach, the authors imply that NICE are recommending “universal CTCA” which is incorrect. Non-anginal chest pain occurs in 40-60% of patients pre...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    The authors are investigators involved in the SCOT-HEART trial.