RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center.
Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
JAMA. 2018 Jun 12;319(22):2315-2328. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.6897.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States.
To review the evidence on screening asymptomatic adults for CVD risk using electrocardiography (ECG) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through April 4, 2018.
English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs); prospective cohort studies reporting reclassification, calibration, or discrimination that compared risk assessment using ECG plus traditional risk factors vs traditional risk factors alone. For harms, additional study designs were eligible. Studies of persons with symptoms or a CVD diagnosis were excluded.
Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings.
Mortality, cardiovascular events, reclassification, calibration, discrimination, and harms.
Sixteen studies were included (N = 77 140). Two RCTs (n = 1151) found no significant improvement for screening with exercise ECG (vs no screening) in adults aged 50 to 75 years with diabetes for the primary cardiovascular composite outcomes (hazard ratios, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.59-1.71] and 0.85 [95% CI, 0.39-1.84] for each study). No RCTs evaluated screening with resting ECG. Evidence from 5 cohort studies (n = 9582) showed that adding exercise ECG to traditional risk factors such as age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, total cholesterol level, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level produced small improvements in discrimination (absolute improvements in area under the curve [AUC] or C statistics, 0.02-0.03, reported by 3 studies); whether calibration or appropriate risk classification improves is uncertain. Evidence from 9 cohort studies (n = 66 407) showed that adding resting ECG to traditional risk factors produced small improvements in discrimination (absolute improvement in AUC or C statistics, 0.001-0.05) and appropriate risk classification for prediction of multiple cardiovascular outcomes, although evidence was limited by imprecision, quality, considerable heterogeneity, and inconsistent use of risk thresholds used for clinical decision making. Total net reclassification improvements ranged from 3.6% (2.7% event; 0.6% nonevent) to 30% (17% event; 19% nonevent) for studies using the Framingham Risk Score or Pooled Cohort Equations base models. Evidence on potential harms (eg, from subsequent angiography or revascularization) in asymptomatic persons was limited.
RCTs of screening with exercise ECG found no improvement in health outcomes, despite focusing on higher-risk populations with diabetes. The addition of resting ECG to traditional risk factors accurately reclassified persons, but evidence for this finding had many limitations. The frequency of harms from screening is uncertain.
心血管疾病(CVD)是美国的主要死亡原因。
审查使用心电图(ECG)对无症状成年人进行 CVD 风险筛查的证据,为美国预防服务工作组提供信息。
通过 2017 年 5 月的 MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆和试验登记处;参考文献;专家;2018 年 4 月 4 日之前的文献监测。
英语随机临床试验(RCT);前瞻性队列研究报告了再分类、校准或鉴别,将使用心电图加传统危险因素与仅使用传统危险因素进行风险评估进行了比较。对于危害,还可以选择其他研究设计。排除了有症状或 CVD 诊断的人的研究。
对摘要、全文文章和研究质量进行双重审查;对研究结果进行定性综合。
死亡率、心血管事件、再分类、校准、鉴别和危害。
纳入了 16 项研究(N=77140)。两项 RCT(n=1151)发现,在 50 至 75 岁患有糖尿病的成年人中,运动心电图(与不筛查相比)在主要心血管复合结局方面没有显著改善(每个研究的风险比为 1.00[95%置信区间,0.59-1.71]和 0.85[95%置信区间,0.39-1.84])。没有 RCT 评估静息心电图筛查。5 项队列研究(n=9582)的证据表明,将运动心电图添加到年龄、性别、当前吸烟、糖尿病、总胆固醇水平和高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平等传统危险因素中,可以稍微提高鉴别能力(由 3 项研究报告的曲线下面积[AUC]或 C 统计的绝对改善为 0.02-0.03);校准或适当的风险分类是否改善尚不确定。9 项队列研究(n=66407)的证据表明,将静息心电图添加到传统危险因素中可以稍微提高预测多种心血管结局的鉴别能力(AUC 或 C 统计的绝对改善为 0.001-0.05)和适当的风险分类,尽管证据受到不精确性、质量、高度异质性和用于临床决策的风险阈值使用不一致的限制。使用Framingham 风险评分或汇总队列方程基础模型的研究中,总净再分类改善范围为 3.6%(2.7%的事件;0.6%的无事件)至 30%(17%的事件;19%的无事件)。关于无症状人群潜在危害(例如,来自后续血管造影或血运重建术)的证据有限。
尽管针对糖尿病等高危人群进行了运动心电图筛查的 RCT 研究,但并未改善健康结局。将静息心电图添加到传统危险因素中可以准确地重新分类患者,但这一发现的证据存在许多局限性。筛查危害的频率不确定。