Suppr超能文献

用于胸痛患者的 ACC 专家共识决策路径的验证。

Validation of the ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Patients With Chest Pain.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA; Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Apr 2;83(13):1181-1190. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.02.004. Epub 2024 Mar 25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) recently published an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for chest pain.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to validate the ACC Pathway in a multisite U.S.

METHODS

An observational cohort study of adults with possible acute coronary syndrome was conducted. Patients were accrued from 5 U.S. Emergency Departments (November 1, 2020, to July 31, 2022). ECGs and 0- and 2-hour high-sensitivity troponin (Beckman Coulter) measures were used to stratify patients according to the ACC Pathway. The primary safety outcome was 30-day all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Efficacy was defined as the proportion stratified to the rule-out zone. Negative predictive value for 30-day death or MI was assessed among the whole cohort and in a subgroup of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (prior MI, revascularization, or ≥70% coronary stenosis).

RESULTS

ACC Pathway assessments were complete in 14,395 patients, of whom 51.7% (7,437 of 14,395) were women with a median age of 56 years (Q1-Q3: 44-68 years). Known CAD was present in 23.5% (3,386 of 14,395) and 30-day death or MI occurred in 8.1% (1,168 of 14,395). The ACC Pathway had an efficacy of 48.1% (95% CI: 47.3%-49.0%). Among patients in the rule-out zone, 0.3% (22 of 6,930) had death or MI at 30 days, yielding a negative predictive value of 99.7% (95% CI: 99.5%-99.8%). In patients with known CAD, 20.0% (676 of 3,386) were classified to the rule-out zone, of whom 1.5% (10 of 676) had death or MI.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACC expert consensus decision pathway was safe and efficacious. However, it may not be safe for use among patients with known CAD.

摘要

背景

美国心脏病学会(ACC)最近发布了一份胸痛专家共识决策路径。

目的

本研究旨在验证该决策路径在美国多个地点的有效性。

方法

这是一项对可能患有急性冠状动脉综合征的成年人进行的多中心观察性队列研究。患者从美国 5 个急诊部招募(2020 年 11 月 1 日至 2022 年 7 月 31 日)。根据 ACC 路径,通过心电图和 0 小时和 2 小时高敏肌钙蛋白(贝克曼库尔特)测量对患者进行分层。主要安全性结局是 30 天全因死亡或心肌梗死(MI)。疗效定义为归入排除区的比例。在整个队列和冠状动脉疾病(CAD)(既往 MI、血运重建或≥70%冠状动脉狭窄)患者亚组中评估 30 天死亡或 MI 的阴性预测值。

结果

14395 例患者的 ACC 路径评估完整,其中 51.7%(7437/14395)为女性,中位年龄为 56 岁(四分位距:44-68 岁)。已知 CAD 占 23.5%(3386/14395),30 天内死亡或 MI 发生率为 8.1%(1168/14395)。ACC 路径的疗效为 48.1%(95%CI:47.3%-49.0%)。在排除区的患者中,30 天内死亡或 MI 发生率为 0.3%(22/6930),阴性预测值为 99.7%(95%CI:99.5%-99.8%)。在已知 CAD 的患者中,20.0%(3386 例中的 676 例)被归入排除区,其中 1.5%(676 例中的 10 例)发生死亡或 MI。

结论

ACC 专家共识决策路径安全且有效。然而,在已知 CAD 患者中使用可能不安全。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验