Suppr超能文献

急诊医生的整体思维能否“确诊”或“排除”急性冠脉综合征:一项多中心前瞻性诊断队列研究的验证。

Can Emergency Physician Gestalt "Rule In" or "Rule Out" Acute Coronary Syndrome: Validation in a Multicenter Prospective Diagnostic Cohort Study.

机构信息

University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Jan;27(1):24-30. doi: 10.1111/acem.13836. Epub 2019 Sep 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chest pain is a common problem presenting to the emergency department (ED). Many decision aids and accelerated diagnostic protocols have been developed to help clinicians differentiate those needing admission from those who can be safely discharged. Some early evidence has suggested that clinician judgment or gestalt alone could be sufficient.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to externally validate whether emergency physician's gestalt could "rule in" or "rule out" acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter prospective diagnostic accuracy study including consenting patients presenting to the ED in whom the physician suspected ACS. At the time of arrival, clinicians recorded their perceived probability of ACS using a 5-point Likert scale. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of ACS, defined as acute myocardial infarction or major adverse cardiac events within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1,391 patients were included; 240 (17.3%) had ACS. Overall, gestalt had fair diagnostic accuracy with a C-statistic of 0.75 (95% confidence interval = 0.72 to 0.79). If ACS was "ruled out" in the 60 (4.3%) patients where clinicians perceived that the diagnosis was "definitely not" ACS, a sensitivity of 98.0% and negative predictive value of 95.0% could have been achieved. If ACS was only ruled out in patients who also had no electrocardiographic (ECG) ischemia and a normal initial cardiac troponin (cTn) concentration, 100.0% sensitivity and NPV could be achieved. However, this strategy only applied to 4.1% of patients. If patients with "probably not" ACS who had normal ECG and cTn were also ruled out (n = 418, 30.8%), sensitivity fell to 86.2% with 99.2% NPV. Using gestalt "definitely" ACS to rule in ACS gave a specificity of 98.5% and positive predictive value of 71.2%.

CONCLUSION

Clinician gestalt is not sufficiently accurate or safe to either rule in or rule out ACS as a decision-making strategy. This study will enable emergency physicians to understand the limitations of our clinical judgment.

摘要

背景

胸痛是急诊科常见的问题。为了帮助临床医生区分需要住院治疗的患者和可以安全出院的患者,已经开发出许多决策辅助工具和加速诊断方案。一些早期的证据表明,临床医生的判断或整体印象可能就足够了。

目的

我们旨在外部验证急诊医师的整体印象是否可以“确定”或“排除”急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)。

方法

我们进行了一项多中心前瞻性诊断准确性研究,纳入了急诊科就诊时怀疑 ACS 的患者。在到达时,临床医生使用 5 分 Likert 量表记录他们对 ACS 的感知概率。主要结局是在 30 天内诊断为 ACS,定义为急性心肌梗死或主要不良心脏事件。

结果

共纳入 1391 例患者,其中 240 例(17.3%)患有 ACS。总体而言,整体印象具有中等的诊断准确性,C 统计量为 0.75(95%置信区间为 0.72 至 0.79)。如果在 60 例临床医生认为诊断“绝对不是”ACS 的患者中“排除”ACS,那么可以达到 98.0%的敏感性和 95.0%的阴性预测值。如果仅在没有心电图(ECG)缺血且初始心脏肌钙蛋白(cTn)浓度正常的患者中排除 ACS,可实现 100.0%的敏感性和 NPV。然而,这种策略仅适用于 4.1%的患者。如果排除心电图和 cTn 正常的“可能不是”ACS 的患者(n=418,30.8%),则敏感性下降至 86.2%,99.2%的阴性预测值。使用整体印象“肯定”ACS 来确定 ACS,可以达到 98.5%的特异性和 71.2%的阳性预测值。

结论

临床医生的整体印象既不够准确也不够安全,不能作为决策的策略来确定或排除 ACS。这项研究将使急诊医师能够了解我们临床判断的局限性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验