Division of Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina2Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
JAMA. 2015 Nov 10;314(18):1955-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12735.
About 10% of patients with acute chest pain are ultimately diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Early, accurate estimation of the probability of ACS in these patients using the clinical examination could prevent many hospital admissions among low-risk patients and ensure that high-risk patients are promptly treated.
To review systematically the accuracy of the initial history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, and risk scores incorporating these elements with the first cardiac-specific troponin.
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (January 1, 1995-July 31, 2015), along with reference lists from retrieved articles, to identify prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy among patients admitted to the emergency department with symptoms suggesting ACS.
We identified 2992 unique articles; 58 met inclusion criteria.
Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio (LR) of findings for the diagnosis of ACS. The reference standard for ACS was either a final hospital diagnosis of ACS or occurrence of a cardiovascular event within 6 weeks.
The clinical findings and risk factors most suggestive of ACS were prior abnormal stress test (specificity, 96%; LR, 3.1 [95% CI, 2.0-4.7]), peripheral arterial disease (specificity, 97%; LR, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.5-4.8]), and pain radiation to both arms (specificity, 96%; LR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.8-3.7]). The most useful electrocardiogram findings were ST-segment depression (specificity, 95%; LR, 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia (specificity, 91%; LR, 3.6 [95% CI,1.6-5.7]). Both the History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk scores performed well in diagnosing ACS: LR, 13 (95% CI, 7.0-24) for the high-risk range of the HEART score (7-10) and LR, 6.8 (95% CI, 5.2-8.9) for the high-risk range of the TIMI score (5-7). The most useful for identifying patients less likely to have ACS were the low-risk range HEART score (0-3) (LR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.30]), low-risk range TIMI score (0-1) (LR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.23-0.43]), or low to intermediate risk designation by the Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand risk algorithm (LR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.19-0.31]).
Among patients with suspected ACS presenting to emergency departments, the initial history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram alone did not confirm or exclude the diagnosis of ACS. Instead, the HEART or TIMI risk scores, which incorporate the first cardiac troponin, provided more diagnostic information.
约有 10%的急性胸痛患者最终被诊断为急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)。在这些患者中,使用临床检查早期、准确地估计 ACS 的可能性,可以防止许多低危患者住院,并确保高危患者得到及时治疗。
系统回顾初始病史、体格检查、心电图和包含这些元素的风险评分与首次心脏特异性肌钙蛋白检测的准确性。
通过 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 进行检索(1995 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 7 月 31 日),并检索文章的参考文献,以确定急诊科就诊的疑似 ACS 症状患者的诊断性试验准确性的前瞻性研究。
我们共检索到 2992 篇独特的文章;58 篇符合纳入标准。
ACS 诊断的发现物的敏感性、特异性和似然比(LR)。ACS 的参考标准是最终的医院 ACS 诊断或 6 周内发生心血管事件。
最能提示 ACS 的临床发现和危险因素是先前异常的应激试验(特异性,96%;LR,3.1[95%CI,2.0-4.7])、外周动脉疾病(特异性,97%;LR,2.7[95%CI,1.5-4.8])和疼痛放射至双臂(特异性,96%;LR,2.6[95%CI,1.8-3.7])。最有用的心电图发现是 ST 段压低(特异性,95%;LR,5.3[95%CI,2.1-8.6])和任何证据的缺血(特异性,91%;LR,3.6[95%CI,1.6-5.7])。History、Electrocardiogram、Age、Risk Factors、Troponin(HEART)和 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction(TIMI)风险评分在诊断 ACS 方面表现良好:高危范围的 HEART 评分(7-10)LR 为 13(95%CI,7.0-24),高危范围的 TIMI 评分(5-7)LR 为 6.8(95%CI,5.2-8.9)。最有助于识别不太可能患有 ACS 的患者的是低危范围的 HEART 评分(0-3)(LR,0.20[95%CI,0.13-0.30])、低危范围的 TIMI 评分(0-1)(LR,0.31[95%CI,0.23-0.43])或澳大利亚心脏基金会和澳大利亚及新西兰心脏协会风险算法的低至中危风险分类(LR,0.24[95%CI,0.19-0.31])。
在急诊科就诊的疑似 ACS 患者中,初始病史、体格检查和心电图本身不能确认或排除 ACS 的诊断。相反,包含首次心脏肌钙蛋白的 HEART 或 TIMI 风险评分提供了更多的诊断信息。