Unmet Clinical Need

Chest pain and related symptoms are the second most common cause of emergency department visits in the US, accounting for approximately 7 million visits in 20101.

In the UK, more than 5% of emergency department visits and up to 40% of emergency admissions are as a direct result of chest pain2. Chest pain-related emergency hospital admissions not only create a vast economic burden on healthcare services but also cause huge disruption to inpatient care.

The earlier a patient with an Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) is diagnosed and treated, the better their outcome, so patients presenting with chest pain must be assessed rapidly. This assessment follows a chest pain pathway based on guidelines published from global institutions including:

  • The European Society of Cardiology3
  • The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association4
  • The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence5.

The ultimate clinical decision will involve an assessment of lifestyle factors and family history, as well as the now standard-of-care ECG and serial cardiac biomarker testing.

CAUTION - Investigational Device, Limited by Federal Law (United States and International) to Investigational Use Only.
CAUTION – Investigational Device, Limited by Federal Law (United States and International) to Investigational Use Only.

quantum 66 MC

Of all patients who present at the emergency department with chest pain, 75% will have a non-cardiac condition6, however most of these will still follow the chest pain pathway and undergo serial cardiac biomarker testing to rule out an MI or other cardiac syndromes. The biomarker tests can take several hours to complete and the patient must remain in the emergency department or specialist cardiac unit during this time.

Current testing is a RULE IN test which means a positive test can identify heart problems, including Myocardial Infarction, however a negative test does not mean there is no disease present.
quantum 63 TRI

  1. NHAMCS 2010
  2. Ruigómez et al. 2006
  3. Hamm et al. 2011
  4. Anderson et al. 2007
  5. NICE 2010
  6. Backus et al. 2011; Rohacek et al. 2012; Six et al. 2012; Backus et al. 2013