Avigni Nicola, Ippoliti Maurizio, Muccinelli Maria, Kubbajeh Moh'd, Zanotti Carlo, Tonioli Massimo, Percoco Giovanni Franco
U.O. di Cardiologia, Ospedale del Delta, Lagosanto (FE).
G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2011 May;12(5):365-73. doi: 10.1714/643.7502.
The evaluation of chest pain patients in the emergency department remains a costly and difficult challenge, even though a large proportion of them do not suffer from an acute coronary syndrome. We adopted a clinical decision model, modified from the ANMCO-SIMEU recommendations, and tested its clinical usefulness by assessing: a) the rate of unnecessary hospital admissions, b) the rate of inappropriate discharges based on coronary events (unstable angina, myocardial infarction, death) at 6 months.
Our population included 511 consecutive patients with chest pain for a period of 6 months. On the basis of the chest pain score and individual risk factors, 383 patients with normal ECG and negative troponin were classified into four categories according to the probability of acute coronary syndrome, resulting in different lengths of hospital stay and planning of further diagnostic tests. Stress testing was mandatory within 72 h if 22 risk factors and typical angina were observed.
Inappropriate discharges and unnecessary admissions were 1% and 9.5%, respectively. The clinical decision model based on the four categories of probability was correctly applied in 83% of cases. One hundred patients were diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome. After discharge, 6 patients underwent stress testing with subsequent revascularization (mean 34 days later) without experiencing new cardiac events. One patient was readmitted with unstable angina before completing non-invasive diagnostic tests. None of 297 patients with atypical chest pain, discharged without additional testing, had adverse cardiac events.
Our clinical decision model resulted in a low rate of inappropriate discharges with a low risk of adverse events and a standard rate of unnecessary admissions. Although clinical judgment remains of paramount importance, a clinical decision model and the risk stratification of patients with chest pain lead to an improvement of quality of care.
尽管急诊胸痛患者中很大一部分并非患有急性冠状动脉综合征,但对其进行评估仍是一项成本高昂且颇具难度的挑战。我们采用了一种基于意大利心脏病学会(ANMCO)-SIMEU建议修改的临床决策模型,并通过评估以下方面来检验其临床实用性:a)不必要的住院率;b)基于6个月时冠状动脉事件(不稳定型心绞痛、心肌梗死、死亡)的不适当出院率。
我们的研究对象包括连续6个月内的511例胸痛患者。根据胸痛评分和个体危险因素,将383例心电图正常且肌钙蛋白阴性的患者按照急性冠状动脉综合征的可能性分为四类,从而确定不同的住院时长以及进一步诊断检查的计划。如果观察到22个危险因素和典型心绞痛,则必须在72小时内进行负荷试验。
不适当出院率和不必要住院率分别为1%和9.5%。基于四类可能性的临床决策模型在83%的病例中得到正确应用。100例患者被诊断为急性冠状动脉综合征。出院后,6例患者接受了负荷试验,随后进行了血运重建(平均34天后),未出现新的心脏事件。1例患者在完成无创诊断检查前因不稳定型心绞痛再次入院。297例未进行额外检查而出院的非典型胸痛患者均未发生不良心脏事件。
我们的临床决策模型导致不适当出院率较低,不良事件风险较低,不必要住院率处于标准水平。尽管临床判断仍然至关重要,但临床决策模型和胸痛患者的风险分层可提高医疗质量。