Suppr超能文献

胸痛患者评估与分诊的综合策略。

Comprehensive strategy for the evaluation and triage of the chest pain patient.

作者信息

Tatum J L, Jesse R L, Kontos M C, Nicholson C S, Schmidt K L, Roberts C S, Ornato J P

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 1997 Jan;29(1):116-25. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(97)70317-2.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a systematic evaluation and triage strategy including immediate resting myocardial perfusion imaging in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain of possible ischemic origin.

METHODS

We conducted an observational study of 1,187 consecutive patients seen in the ED of an urban tertiary care hospital with the chief complaint of chest pain. Within 60 minutes of presentation, each patient was assigned to one of five levels on the basis of his or her risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina (UA): level 1, MI; level 2, MI/UA; level 3, probable UA; level 4, possible UA; and level 5, noncardiac chest pain. In the lower risk levels (3 and 4), immediate resting myocardial perfusion imaging was used as a risk-stratification tool alone (level 4) or in combination with serial markers (level 3).

RESULTS

Acute MI, early revascularization indicative of acute coronary syndrome, or both were consistent with risk designations: level 1: 96% MI, 56% revascularization; level 2: 13% MI, 29% revascularization; level 3: 3% MI, 17% revascularization; level 4: .7% MI; 2.5% revascularization. Sensitivity of immediate resting myocardial perfusion imaging for MI was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64% to 100%) and specificity 78% (74% to 82%). In patients with abnormal imaging findings, risk for MI (7% versus 0%, P < .001; relative risk [RR], 50; 95% CI, 2.8 to 889) and for MI or revascularization (32% vs 2%, P < .001; RR, 15.5; 95% CI, 6.4 to 36) were significantly higher than in patients with normal imaging findings. During 1-year follow-up, patients with normal imaging findings (n = 338) had an event rate of 3% (revascularization) with no MI or death (combined events: negative predictive value, 97%; 95% CI, 95% to 98%). Patients with abnormal imaging findings (n = 100) had a 42% event rate (combined events: RR, 14.2; 95% CI, 6.5 to 30; P < .001), with 11% experiencing MI and 8% cardiac death.

CONCLUSION

This strategy is a safe, effective method for rapid triage of chest pain patients. Rapid perfusion imaging plays a key role in the risk stratification of low-risk patients, allowing discrimination of unsuspected high risk patients who require prompt admission and possible intervention from those who are truly at low risk.

摘要

研究目的

评估一种系统评估和分诊策略的安全性和有效性,该策略包括对因可能源于缺血性的胸痛而到急诊科就诊的患者进行即刻静息心肌灌注成像。

方法

我们对一家城市三级护理医院急诊科连续诊治的1187例以胸痛为主诉的患者进行了一项观察性研究。在就诊后60分钟内,根据每位患者发生心肌梗死(MI)或不稳定型心绞痛(UA)的风险,将其分为五个级别之一:1级,MI;2级,MI/UA;3级,可能为UA;4级,可能为UA;5级,非心源性胸痛。在较低风险级别(3级和4级)中,即刻静息心肌灌注成像单独用作风险分层工具(4级)或与系列标志物联合使用(3级)。

结果

急性MI、提示急性冠状动脉综合征的早期血运重建或两者均与风险分级一致:1级:96%为MI,56%进行了血运重建;2级:13%为MI,29%进行了血运重建;3级:3%为MI,17%进行了血运重建;4级:0.7%为MI;2.5%进行了血运重建。即刻静息心肌灌注成像对MI的敏感性为100%(95%置信区间[CI],64%至100%),特异性为78%(74%至82%)。成像结果异常的患者发生MI的风险(7%对0%,P<.001;相对风险[RR],50;95%CI,2.8至889)以及发生MI或血运重建的风险(32%对2%,P<.001;RR,15.5;95%CI,6.4至36)显著高于成像结果正常的患者。在1年的随访期间,成像结果正常的患者(n = 338)的事件发生率为3%(血运重建),无MI或死亡(联合事件:阴性预测值为97%;95%CI,95%至98%)。成像结果异常的患者(n = 100)的事件发生率为42%(联合事件:RR,14.2;95%CI,6.5至30;P<.001),其中11%发生MI,8%发生心源性死亡。

结论

该策略是一种对胸痛患者进行快速分诊的安全、有效方法。快速灌注成像在低风险患者的风险分层中起关键作用,能够区分出那些需要及时入院并可能进行干预的未被怀疑为高风险的患者与真正低风险的患者。

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