Alonso Mileydis, Neicheril Radhika K, Shettigar Shruti, Lavina Allen, Seijo de Armas Yelenis, Carter Avery, Liang Hong, Alonso Ashley, Piotrkowski Jared S
Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, USA.
Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, USA.
Cureus. 2022 Jul 27;14(7):e27326. doi: 10.7759/cureus.27326. eCollection 2022 Jul.
Background The first-line imaging for low to medium-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with stable chest pain is often a matter of debate. Chest pain is the second most common presentation to the emergency department. Non-invasive imaging has been useful in assisting in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Aim The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Nuclear Perfusion Stress and Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) performed in low to medium-risk patients and how they led to prolonged hospitalization and downstream testing. Materials and methods A total of 519 patients were selected for chart review using the following criteria: admitted for chest pain and older than 18 years of age. Those who presented with STEMI (ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) or non-(N)STEMI were excluded. Among these patients, four patients were excluded since their initial test was neither a CCTA nor SPECT Nuclear (NM) Perfusion Stress test. Another 30 patients were excluded based on HEART score (a clinical tool to stratify the risk of major adverse cardiac events) >7 and 111 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 were excluded. A total of 374 patients underwent analysis. Results Univariate data analysis of 374 patients demonstrated a higher percentage of patients with HEART scores 0-3 underwent CCTA (51.6% vs. 31.8% p=0.0250) when compared to patients with SPECT NM perfusion. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that the difference in length of stay between SPECT NM perfusion stress and CCTA was significant, patients with the CCTA test were less likely to have a length of stay ≥24 hours (odds ratio {OR}=0.41, p=0.0465) compared to patients with NM perfusion stress test. Conclusion This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that patients who underwent CCTA upon chest pain admission were more likely to have a decreased length of stay time to less than 24 hours.
对于因胸痛前往急诊科就诊的低至中度风险患者,一线影像学检查方法常常存在争议。胸痛是急诊科第二常见的就诊症状。无创成像在辅助诊断冠状动脉疾病方面很有用。
本研究旨在比较在低至中度风险患者中进行单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)核灌注应激检查和冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)的结果,以及它们如何导致住院时间延长和后续检查。
共选择519例患者进行病历审查,采用以下标准:因胸痛入院且年龄大于18岁。排除出现ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)的患者。在这些患者中,4例患者被排除,因为他们的初始检查既不是CCTA也不是SPECT核灌注应激试验。另外30例患者根据HEART评分(一种用于分层主要不良心脏事件风险的临床工具)>7被排除,111例估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)<60的患者被排除。共有374例患者接受分析。
对374例患者的单因素数据分析显示,与接受SPECT核灌注的患者相比,HEART评分为0 - 3的患者接受CCTA的比例更高(51.6%对31.8%,p = 0.0250)。多变量逻辑回归显示,SPECT核灌注应激检查和CCTA之间的住院时间差异显著,与接受核灌注应激试验的患者相比,接受CCTA检查的患者住院时间≥24小时的可能性较小(优势比{OR}=0.41,p = 0.0465)。
这项回顾性队列研究表明,因胸痛入院时接受CCTA检查的患者住院时间更有可能缩短至24小时以内。