Observational studyScientific reports2025
An Australian experience of the Rapid Access Chest Pain Assessment Clinic.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comments on the Rapid Access Chest Pain Assessment Clinic: An Australian Virtual Care Experience.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid Access Chest Pain Assessment Clinic (RACPAC) offers an outpatient evaluation for patients with troponin-negative, low-to-intermediate risk chest pain. This 10-year study assessed its role in the early identification of patients at cardiovascular risk and compared the modes of coronary investigation performances. A single-centre, observational, retrospective cohort study from July 2012 to July 2022 assessed patients who underwent diagnostic tests: CT coronary angiography (CTCA), treadmill stress echocardiogram (TSE), myocardial perfusion scan (MPS), or invasive coronary angiogram (ICA). True positive cases were defined by obstructive disease on subsequent ICA. Baseline characteristics, investigation choice, results, conversion rates to ICA, and identification of new modifiable risk factors to potentially reduce future cardiovascular events were analysed. A total of 3976 patients with low-to-intermediate risk chest pain, mean age (55.2 ± 11.6) years, 51% male, with prevalent risk factors such as positive family history (49%) and dyslipidaemia (42%). Initial investigations: TSE (49.2%), CTCA (43.7%), MPS (4.6%), and ICA (2.5%). CTCA showed superior performance compared to TSE in positive predictive value (97% vs. 82%), negative predictive value (66% vs. 27%) for those proceeding to ICA despite initial negative/inconclusive results, and attendance rates (97% vs. 92%). Incidental findings occurred in 4% of cases, predominantly with CTCA. New modifiable CVD risk factors were identified in 33% of patients, and 17% had CAD with pre-existing CVD risk factors needing stricter control. Our study highlights the effectiveness of CTCA as a primary investigation for troponin-negative, low-to-intermediate risk chest pain patients, with high predictive values, incidental findings and attendance rates. It also emphasises RACPAC's potential role in identifying patients at cardiovascular disease risk and perhaps reducing future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.