Ferreira João, Luis Mariana, Baptista Rui, Monteiro Sílvia, Gonçalves Lino
Cardiology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, PRT.
Rheumatology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, PRT.
Cureus. 2021 Feb 7;13(2):e13189. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13189.
Background The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases identify predictive factors of poor prognosis and advise either in favor or against hospitalization accordingly. We aim to evaluate the adequacy of hospitalization criteria in a cohort of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pericarditis. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients admitted to ED with acute pericarditis, from 2009 to 2019. During ED stay, all patients were evaluated by a cardiologist who decided if the patient was to be discharged or hospitalized. Hospitalized and discharged patients were compared regarding the primary outcome, defined by a composite of: the need for pericardiocentesis and/or cardiac surgery, pericarditis recurrence, and all-cause death. The clinical decision was then counterpoised with ESC guidelines. Results A total of 192 patients were included in the analysis (median age 44.5 years old, 83.3% male) of which 87 (45.5%) were hospitalized. A total of 25% registered the primary outcome, mainly due to acute pericarditis recurrence, occurring in 21.9%. Predictors of recurrence were: glucocorticoid therapy (Odds Ratio [OR]=11.93, 95% Confidence Inirtval [CI] 3.13-45.5, p<0.001), fever at admission (OR=2.67, 95% CI 1.29-5.49, p=0.008), immunosuppression (OR=4.03, 95% CI 1.280-12.659, p=0.017) and increased cardiothoracic index (OR 3.85, CI 95% 1.67-8.86, p=0.002). Regarding hospitalisation/discharge decision, the ESC guidelines were respected in 73.4% of the cases. However, no significant difference in the primary outcome was noted whether the ESC guidelines were respected or not (27.5% vs. 24.3%, p=0.707). Conclusions Discrepancy between current guidelines and the clinical decision did not translate into a different outcome.
背景 欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)心包疾病诊断和管理指南确定了预后不良的预测因素,并据此建议支持或反对住院治疗。我们旨在评估急诊科(ED)收治的急性心包炎患者队列中住院标准的合理性。方法 对2009年至2019年因急性心包炎入住急诊科的患者进行回顾性分析。在急诊科住院期间,所有患者均由心脏病专家进行评估,以决定患者是出院还是住院。比较住院患者和出院患者的主要结局,主要结局定义为:心包穿刺和/或心脏手术的需求、心包炎复发和全因死亡的综合情况。然后将临床决策与ESC指南进行对比。结果 共有192例患者纳入分析(中位年龄44.5岁,83.3%为男性),其中87例(45.5%)住院。共有25%的患者出现主要结局,主要原因是急性心包炎复发,发生率为21.9%。复发的预测因素包括:糖皮质激素治疗(比值比[OR]=11.93,95%置信区间[CI] 3.13 - 45.5,p<0.001)、入院时发热(OR=2.67,95% CI 1.29 - 5.49,p=0.008)、免疫抑制(OR=4.03,95% CI 1.280 - 12.659,p=0.017)和心胸指数增加(OR 3.85,CI 95% 1.67 - 8.86,p=0.002)。关于住院/出院决策,73.4%的病例符合ESC指南。然而,无论是否符合ESC指南,主要结局均无显著差异(27.5%对24.3%,p=0.707)。结论 当前指南与临床决策之间的差异并未转化为不同的结局。