Suppr超能文献

急诊科胸痛患者明确的非心脏性替代诊断与30天预后的关系。

Relationship between a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis and 30-day outcome in emergency department patients with chest pain.

作者信息

Hollander Judd E, Robey Jennifer L, Chase Maureen R, Brown Aaron M, Zogby Kara E, Shofer Frances S

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Mar;14(3):210-5. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.09.053. Epub 2007 Jan 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Accurate identification of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) in the emergency department (ED) remains problematic. Studies have not been able to identify a cohort of patients that are safe for immediate ED discharge; however, prior studies have not examined the utility of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the 30-day event rate in ED chest pain patients who were diagnosed with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis with the 30-day event rate in the cohort of patients in whom a definitive diagnosis could not be made in the ED.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive ED patients with potential ACS. Data included demographics, medical and cardiac history, laboratory and electrocardiogram results, and whether or not the treating physician ascribed the condition to a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis. The main outcome was death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or revascularization within 30 days, as determined by phone follow-up or medical record review.

RESULTS

The investigators enrolled 1,995 patients in the ED who had potential ACSs. Overall, 77 had a final hospital diagnosis of AMI (4%). Within 30 days, 73 patients received revascularization (4%), and 26 died (1%). There were 599 (30%) patients given a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis. Comparing the patients with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis with those without an obvious noncardiac diagnosis, the presence of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis was associated with a reduced risk of an in-hospital triple-composite endpoint (death, MI, and revascularization), with a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.55) and 30-day triple-composite endpoint with a risk ratio of 0.45 (95% CI = 0.29 to 0.69); however, patients with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis still had a 4% event rate at 30 days (95% CI = 2.4% to 5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In the ED chest pain patient, the presence of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis reduces the likelihood of a composite outcome of death and cardiovascular events within 30 days. However, it does not reduce the event rate to an acceptable level to allow ED discharge of these patients.

摘要

背景

在急诊科(ED)准确识别急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者仍然存在问题。研究未能确定一组可安全从急诊科立即出院的患者;然而,既往研究未探讨明确的非心脏性替代诊断的效用。

目的

比较被诊断为明确的非心脏性替代诊断的急诊科胸痛患者的30天事件发生率与在急诊科无法做出明确诊断的患者队列的30天事件发生率。

方法

这是一项对连续的有潜在ACS的急诊科患者进行的前瞻性队列研究。数据包括人口统计学、病史和心脏病史、实验室及心电图结果,以及治疗医师是否将病情归因于明确的非心脏性替代诊断。主要结局是通过电话随访或病历审查确定的30天内死亡、急性心肌梗死(AMI)或血运重建。

结果

研究人员纳入了1995例在急诊科有潜在ACS的患者。总体而言,77例最终医院诊断为AMI(4%)。30天内,73例患者接受了血运重建(4%),26例死亡(1%)。有599例(30%)患者被给予明确的非心脏性替代诊断。将有明确的非心脏性替代诊断的患者与无明显非心脏性诊断的患者进行比较,明确的非心脏性替代诊断的存在与住院期间复合终点事件(死亡、心肌梗死和血运重建)风险降低相关,风险比为0.32(95%置信区间[CI]=0.19至0.55),30天复合终点事件风险比为0.45(95%CI=0.29至0.69);然而,有明确的非心脏性替代诊断的患者在30天时仍有4%的事件发生率(95%CI=2.4%至5.6%)。

结论

在急诊科胸痛患者中,明确的非心脏性替代诊断的存在降低了30天内死亡和心血管事件复合结局的可能性。然而,它并未将事件发生率降低到可接受的水平以允许这些患者从急诊科出院。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验