Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Can J Cardiol. 2018 Feb;34(2):168-179. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.004. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
Acute heart failure (AHF) accounts for a substantial proportion of Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Previous studies have shown that emergency physicians' clinical gestalt is not sufficient to stratify patients with AHF into severe and requiring hospitalization vs nonsevere and safe to be discharged. Various prognostic algorithms have been developed to risk-stratify patients with AHF, however there is no consensus as to the best-performing risk assessment tool in the ED.
A systematic review of Medline, PubMed, and Embase up to May 2016 was conducted using established methods. Major cardiology and emergency medicine conference proceedings from 2010 to 2016 were also screened. Two independent reviewers identified studies that evaluated clinical risk scores in adult (ED) patients with AHF, with risk prognostication for mortality or significant morbidity within 7-30 days. Studies included patients who were discharged or admitted.
The systematic review search generated 2950 titles that were screened according to title and abstract. Nine articles, describing 6 risk prediction tools met full inclusion criteria, however, prognostic performance and ease of bedside application is limited for most. Because of clinical heterogeneity in the prognostic tools and study outcomes, a meta-analysis was not performed.
Several risk scores exist for predicting short-term mortality or morbidity in ED patients with AHF. No single risk tool is clearly superior, however, the Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade might aid in prognostication of mortality and the Ottawa Heart Failure Risk Score might provide useful prognostic information in patients suitable for ED discharge.
急性心力衰竭(AHF)在急诊科(ED)就诊和住院患者中占有相当大的比例。既往研究表明,急诊医师的临床印象不足以将 AHF 患者分为严重且需要住院治疗与非严重且可安全出院。已经开发了各种预后算法来对 AHF 患者进行风险分层,但对于 ED 中表现最佳的风险评估工具尚无共识。
采用既定方法对截至 2016 年 5 月的 Medline、PubMed 和 Embase 进行了系统评价。还对 2010 年至 2016 年的主要心脏病学和急诊医学会议记录进行了筛选。两名独立评审员确定了评估 AHF 成年(ED)患者临床风险评分的研究,这些评分对 7-30 天内的死亡率或重大发病率进行风险预测。研究包括出院或入院的患者。
系统评价检索生成了 2950 个标题,根据标题和摘要进行了筛选。符合全部纳入标准的有 9 篇文章,描述了 6 种风险预测工具,但大多数工具的预后性能和床边应用的便利性都有限。由于预后工具和研究结果的临床异质性,因此未进行荟萃分析。
存在一些风险评分可用于预测 ED 中 AHF 患者的短期死亡率或发病率。没有单一的风险工具明显更优,但是急诊心力衰竭死亡率风险分级可能有助于预测死亡率,渥太华心力衰竭风险评分可能为适合 ED 出院的患者提供有用的预后信息。