1. Introduction

Guidelines serve as essential tools in medical practice, providing a standardized approach to diagnosing and treating diseases. However, rigid adherence to these guidelines, particularly in the context of CCS, can be detrimental. The current recommendations suggest that cardiac check-ups are necessary only when patients exhibit symptoms [1,2]. However, real-world data show that a significant number of patients suffer from heart attacks without any prior warning symptoms, and some tragically lose their lives [3-6]. This article aims to caution cardiologists against over-reliance on guidelines and underscores the potential legal repercussions of misdiagnosis when a doctor merely follows protocol.

2. The Danger of Asymptomatic Cases

The guidelines for CCS emphasize symptom-based screening, which often delays necessary intervention. Many patients experience sudden cardiac arrest or acute coronary events despite having no prior symptoms [7]. Silent ischemia, undiagnosed microvascular disease, and individual variations in symptom presentation contribute to the high incidence of sudden, unexpected heart attacks. By strictly following guidelines that prioritize symptomatic evaluation, cardiologists risk overlooking a large cohort of high-risk individuals.

3. A Call for More Proactive Screening

Instead of relying exclusively on symptoms, cardiologists should adopt a more proactive approach to screening, particularly for high-risk populations. Factors such as family history, stress levels, lifestyle habits, and subclinical atherosclerosis detected via advanced imaging [8] should warrant earlier cardiac evaluation. While guidelines provide a structured framework, clinical judgment must take precedence, incorporating personalized risk assessment strategies that extend beyond standardized recommendations.

4. Legal and Ethical Risks of Over-Reliance on Guidelines

When a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose occurs, one common defence is that the physician "followed the guidelines." However, this argument may not hold up in court. Medical malpractice cases often hinge on whether the standard of care was met. If it can be demonstrated that a reasonable cardiologist, considering the patient’s risk factors, should have acted beyond the guideline recommendations, the defence of guideline adherence becomes weakened. Courts may view rigid adherence to guidelines as negligence if it disregards clinical judgment and best practices [9-17].

Moreover, guidelines themselves are subject to periodic updates based on emerging evidence. A guideline that is valid today may be deemed inadequate in the future. If a physician fails to apply broader clinical reasoning and an adverse event occurs, legal liability remains a significant concern.

5. Case study

A 50-year-old asymptomatic male presented to our hospital for a second opinion. He had an unhealthy lifestyle and multiple coronary risk factors. A prior cardiology evaluation had deemed coronary CT imaging unnecessary due to his lack of symptoms. However, contrary to his expectations, coronary CT angiography performed at our facility revealed significant stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery. Consequently, he underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a Drug-Coated Balloon (DCB) technique, with an uneventful post-procedural recovery. Had the patient subsequently suffered a myocardial infarction following his initial consultation, concerns regarding potential misdiagnosis or delayed detection of critical coronary artery disease could have been raised.

6. Conclusion

While guidelines provide valuable direction in managing chronic coronary syndrome, they should not be followed blindly. Cardiologists must recognize the limitations of symptom-based screening and adopt a more comprehensive approach to assessing cardiovascular risk. Ignoring asymptomatic but high-risk patients can lead to fatal consequences and potential legal challenges. The key to optimal patient care lies in blending guideline-based practice with individualized clinical judgment, ensuring that life-threatening cardiac events are prevented whenever possible.

Author Contributions: D.M: Conceptualization, writing, review, and editing.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. Peer Review Committee Members. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 148 (2023): e9-e119.
2. Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 45 (2024): 3415-3537.
3. Kannel WB. Silent myocardial ischemia and infarction: insights from the Framingham Study. Cardiol Clin 4 (1986 ): 583-91.
4. Toth PP. Subclinical atherosclerosis: what it is, what it means and what we can do about it. Int J Clin Pract 62 (2008): 1246-54.
5. Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, et al. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med 4 (2016): 256.
6. Qureshi WT, Zhang ZM, Chang PP, et al. Silent Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Risk of Heart Failure: The ARIC Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 71 (2018): 1-8.
7. Yow AG, Rajasurya V, Ahmed I, et al. Sudden Cardiac Death. [Updated 2024 Mar 16]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing (2025).
8. Meah MN, Maurovich-Horvat P, Williams MC, et al. Debates in cardiac CT: Coronary CT angiography is the best test in asymptomatic patients. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr 16 (2022 ): 290-293.
9. Hurwitz B. Legal and political considerations of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 318 (1999): 661-4.
10. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318 (1999): 527-30.
11. Samanta A, Samanta J, Gunn M. Legal considerations of clinical guidelines: will NICE make a difference? J R Soc Med 96 (2003): 133-8.
12. Hurwitz B. How does evidence based guidance influence determinations of medical negligence? BMJ 329 (2004): 1024-8.
13. Samanta A, Mello MM, Foster C, et al. The role of clinical guidelines in medical negligence litigation: a shift from the Bolam standard? Med Law Rev 14 (2006): 321-66.
14. Lown BA, Victor KE. Should a Physician Offer Recommendations Based on Experience but Contrary to Current Practice Guidelines? AMA J Ethics 20 (2018): E1007-1016.
15. Mathew R. Rammya Mathew: Three questions I ask before using a guideline. BMJ 364 (2019): 1358.
16. Barry HC, Cosgrove L, Slawson DC. Where Clinical Practice Guidelines Go Wrong. Am Fam Physician 105 (2022): 350-352.
17. Guerra-Farfan E, Garcia-Sanchez Y, Jornet-Gibert M, et al. Clinical practice guidelines: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Injury 54 (2023): S26-S29.