Shoyeb Abu, Bokhari Sabahat, Sullivan Jennifer, Hurley Eileen, Miesner Bernadette, Pia Raffaela, Giglio James, Sayan Osman R, Soto Lucy, Chiadika Simbo, LaMarca Cristina, Rabbani LeRoy E, Bergmann Steven R
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jun 15;91(12):1410-4. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(03)00390-4.
The optimal diagnostic evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain but without myocardial infarction or unstable angina is controversial. We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, observational study of 1,195 consecutive patients presenting to the ED with chest pain but who had normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiograms and negative cardiac biomarkers. Patients (mean +/- SD age 61 +/- 15 years; 55% women) were admitted to the hospital and a standard protocol for evaluation and treatment was suggested. The use of stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) or cardiac catheterization during their index hospitalization, and the 3-month incidence of coronary angiography, percutaneous cardiac intervention, coronary artery bypass surgery, re-presentation to our institution's ED for chest pain, myocardial infarction, or death were followed. Five hundred nine of 1,195 patients (43%) underwent provocative stress MPI during their index hospitalization; 37% had perfusion defects (predominantly ischemia). Fifty-six of 1,195 patients (4%) underwent cardiac catheterization without stress MPI for their primary diagnostic evaluation. Six hundred thirty of 1,195 patients (53%) had neither MPI or cardiac catheterization during their index hospitalization. During the 3-month follow-up period, patients with a normal stress perfusion study during their index hospitalization had fewer return visits (4%) compared with patients with abnormal perfusion studies (19%), those who underwent catheterization directly (16%), or patients with no initial diagnostic evaluation (15%) (p <0.001). In addition, patients who had a diagnostic evaluation during their index hospitalization had a lower incidence of either acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 2.1%) or death (0.4% vs 3.0%, p <0.001) in the 3-month follow-up period. Accordingly, we strongly advocate provocative stress MPI early after presentation for chest pain in all patients with risk factors for coronary artery disease.
对于因胸痛就诊于急诊科(ED)但无心肌梗死或不稳定型心绞痛的患者,最佳诊断评估方法存在争议。我们对1195例连续因胸痛就诊于ED但心电图正常或无诊断意义且心脏生物标志物阴性的患者进行了一项前瞻性、非随机观察性研究。患者(平均年龄±标准差为61±15岁;55%为女性)入院,并建议采用标准评估和治疗方案。随访其在首次住院期间应激心肌灌注成像(MPI)或心导管检查的使用情况,以及3个月内冠状动脉造影、经皮心脏介入治疗、冠状动脉旁路移植术、再次因胸痛就诊于我院ED、心肌梗死或死亡的发生率。1195例患者中有509例(43%)在首次住院期间接受了激发性应激MPI检查;37%有灌注缺损(主要为缺血)。1195例患者中有56例(4%)为进行初步诊断评估而未行应激MPI直接接受了心导管检查。1195例患者中有630例(53%)在首次住院期间既未进行MPI检查也未进行心导管检查。在3个月的随访期内,首次住院期间应激灌注研究正常的患者复诊次数(4%)低于灌注研究异常的患者(19%)、直接接受导管检查的患者(16%)或未进行初始诊断评估的患者(15%)(p<0.001)。此外,在首次住院期间接受诊断评估的患者在3个月随访期内急性心肌梗死(0.9%对2.1%)或死亡(0.4%对3.0%,p<0.001)的发生率较低。因此,我们强烈主张对所有有冠状动脉疾病危险因素且因胸痛就诊的患者在就诊后早期进行激发性应激MPI检查。