ischaemic heart disease secondary to coronary artery disease
AI-generated summary
A 72-year-old man with hypercholesterolaemia and obesity presented to the ED with chest pain and atrial fibrillation. Initial ECG showed no acute changes. Clinicians pursued a pulmonary embolus diagnosis based on pleuritic-sounding pain and positive d-dimer, commencing anticoagulation. CTPA was negative and he was discharged with plans for outpatient cardiology review. He died at home the next day from myocardial infarction secondary to severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease. The critical omission was failure to order troponin testing despite chest pain presentation. While the pleuritic description and atypical features led clinicians down the PE diagnostic pathway, troponin is a simple, inexpensive test that should have been performed given the differential diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. Although we cannot know if a positive troponin would have changed management, this represents a diagnostic error where a basic cardiac biomarker was not measured in a high-risk patient with chest pain.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
premature diagnostic closure on pulmonary embolus pathway
atypical presentation of acute coronary syndrome
positive d-dimer leading to anchoring bias
inadequate exclusion of acute coronary syndrome before discharge
Coroner's recommendations
That Peninsula Health develop/review guidelines for clinicians in the Emergency Department for the management of patients presenting with chest pain that supports the performance of troponin measurement in circumstances where a definitive cause of the chest pain has not been identified
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction —