Korb K, Hummers-Pradier E, Stich K, Chenot J, Scherer M
Abteilung für Allgemeinmedizin, Universität Göttingen.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Jan;135(4):120-4. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1244827. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
National and international guidelines for the management of congestive heart failure (HF) suggest a variety of procedures for establishing its diagnosis and monitoring its course. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate which of these recommendations were actually implemented and documented in the setting of general medical practice.
Patients receiving at least one cardiovascular drug (World health [WHO] anatomical chemical classification [ATC] class C) were identified from electronic medical records from 5 general practices from 1.4.2001 to 1.10.2004. Those patients with the documented diagnosis of HF were selected. All patients' records were reviewed and those diagnostic procedures and clinical findings were recorded on a standardized data extraction form that had been used to establish the diagnosis of HF.
An electrocardiogram had been documented or retrieved in the chart in 41.2% of a total of 829 patients, an chest X-ray in 28.2%, an echocardiogram in 17.2%, and a cardiac catheterization performed in 1.8%. Serum natriuretic peptides were never recorded. Additionally the following symptoms and clinical signs were extracted from the paper chart: ankle edema (39.3%), exertional dyspnea (22.7%), rales (21.5%), cardiomegaly (19.0%), paroxysmal dyspnea (16.6%), pleural effusions (9.2%), tachycardia (6.7%) and acute pulmonary edema, hepatomegaly, nocturnal cough or jugular venous distension in fewer than 5%.
Only a few of those clinical signs and diagnostic procedures recommended by guidelines for diagnosing HF were recorded in general practice. The reasons for this finding remain unclear. Even under the assumption that not all observed clinical signs and diagnostic procedures were documented, these findings reflect the actual diagnostic strategy in daily practice. The observed discrepancy between guideline recommendation and reality in everyday practice deserve attention. On the one hand, there is a need for improving the diagnostic approach to HF; on the other, guidelines need to set priorities of the recommendations for diagnosing HF.
国家和国际上关于充血性心力衰竭(HF)管理的指南提出了多种用于确立其诊断和监测病程的程序。这项横断面研究的目的是调查在普通医疗实践环境中这些建议中哪些实际得到了实施和记录。
从2001年4月1日至2004年10月1日期间5家普通诊所的电子病历中识别出至少接受一种心血管药物(世界卫生组织[WHO]解剖学化学分类[ATC] C类)治疗的患者。选择那些有HF诊断记录的患者。对所有患者的病历进行审查,并将那些诊断程序和临床发现记录在用于确立HF诊断的标准化数据提取表格上。
在总共829例患者中,41.2%的患者病历中有心电图记录或可从病历中获取,28.2%有胸部X线检查记录,17.2%有超声心动图记录,1.8%进行了心导管检查。血清利钠肽从未被记录。此外,从纸质病历中提取了以下症状和体征:踝部水肿(39.3%)、劳力性呼吸困难(22.7%)、啰音(21.5%)、心脏扩大(19.0%)、阵发性呼吸困难(16.6%)、胸腔积液(9.2%)、心动过速(6.7%),急性肺水肿、肝肿大、夜间咳嗽或颈静脉怒张的比例不到5%。
在普通医疗实践中,HF诊断指南推荐的临床体征和诊断程序中只有少数被记录。这一发现的原因尚不清楚。即使假设并非所有观察到的临床体征和诊断程序都有记录,这些发现也反映了日常实践中的实际诊断策略。指南建议与日常实践现实之间观察到的差异值得关注。一方面,需要改进HF的诊断方法;另一方面,指南需要确定HF诊断建议的优先顺序。