Linzer M, Prystowsky E N, Divine G W, Matchar D B, Samsa G, Harrell F, Pressley J C, Pryor D B
Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
J Gen Intern Med. 1991 Mar-Apr;6(2):113-20. doi: 10.1007/BF02598305.
To develop and validate a predictive model that would allow clinicians to determine whether an electrophysiologic (EP) study is likely to result in useful diagnostic information for a patient who has unexplained syncope.
One hundred seventy-nine consecutive patients with unexplained syncope who underwent EP studies at two university medical centers comprised the training sample. A test sample to validate the model was made up of 138 patients from the clinical literature who had undergone EP studies for syncope.
Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing EP studies for syncope. The data collector was blinded to the study hypothesis; the electrophysiologist assessing outcomes was blinded to clinical and historical data. Clinical predictor variables available from the history, the physical examination, electrocardiography (ECG), and Holter monitoring were analyzed via two multivariable predictive modeling strategies (ordinal logistic regression and recursive partitioning) for their abilities to predict the results of EP studies, namely tachyarrhythmic and bradyarrhythmic outcomes. These categories were further divided into full arrhythmia and borderline arrhythmia groups.
Important outcomes were 1) sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and 2) bradyarrhythmias, including sinus node and atrioventricular (AV) conducting disease. The results of the logistic regression (in this study, the superior strategy) showed that the presence of organic heart disease [odds ratio (OR) = 3.0, p less than 0.001] and frequent premature ventricular contractions on ECG (OR = 6.7, p less than 0.004) were associated with VT, while the following abnormal ECG findings were associated with bradyarrhythmias: first-degree heart block (OR = 7.9, p less than 0.001), bundle-branch block (OR = 3.0, p less than 0.02), and sinus bradycardia (OR = 3.5, p less than 0.03). Eighty-seven percent of the 31 patients with important outcomes at EP study had at least one of these clinical risk factors, while 95% of the patients with none of these risk factors had normal or nondiagnostic EP studies. In the validation sample, the presence of one or more risk factors would have correctly identified 88% of the test VT patients and 65% of the test bradyarrhythmia patients as needing EP study.
These five identified predictive factors, available from the history, the physical examination, and the initial ECG, could be useful to clinicians in selecting those patients with unexplained syncope who will have a serious arrhythmia identified by EP studies.
开发并验证一种预测模型,使临床医生能够确定对于不明原因晕厥患者,电生理(EP)检查是否可能产生有用的诊断信息。
在两家大学医学中心接受EP检查的179例连续不明原因晕厥患者组成了训练样本。用于验证该模型的测试样本由138例来自临床文献的因晕厥接受EP检查的患者组成。
对因晕厥接受EP检查的患者进行回顾性分析。数据收集者对研究假设不知情;评估结果的电生理学家对临床和病史数据不知情。通过两种多变量预测建模策略(有序逻辑回归和递归划分)分析从病史、体格检查、心电图(ECG)和动态心电图监测中获得的临床预测变量,以评估它们预测EP检查结果(即快速心律失常和缓慢性心律失常结果)的能力。这些类别进一步分为完全性心律失常和临界性心律失常组。
重要结果为1)持续性单形性室性心动过速(VT)和2)缓慢性心律失常,包括窦房结和房室(AV)传导疾病。逻辑回归结果(在本研究中为更优策略)显示,器质性心脏病的存在[比值比(OR)=3.0,p<0.001]和心电图上频繁的室性早搏(OR=6.7,p<0.004)与VT相关,而以下心电图异常表现与缓慢性心律失常相关:一度房室传导阻滞(OR=7.9,p<0.001)、束支传导阻滞(OR=3.0,p<0.02)和窦性心动过缓(OR=3.5,p<0.03)。在EP检查中有重要结果的31例患者中,87%至少有这些临床危险因素之一,而95%没有这些危险因素的患者EP检查结果正常或无诊断意义。在验证样本中,存在一个或多个危险因素可正确识别88%的测试VT患者和65%的测试缓慢性心律失常患者需要进行EP检查。
从病史、体格检查和初始心电图中确定的这五个预测因素,可能有助于临床医生选择那些通过EP检查能发现严重心律失常的不明原因晕厥患者。