Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Circulation ; 127(17): 1793-800, 2013 Apr 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23470859

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention at 7 US hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen weighted κ statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (quartiles 1 and 3, 80.0% and 90.0%), with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was 8.2±8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted κ of 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA, although none were <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50% to <70%), with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, whereas approximately one quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária/normas , Estenose Coronária/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose Coronária/cirurgia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/normas , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
2.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes ; 13(7): e006204, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32586105

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Catheterization laboratory (cath lab) activation time is a newly available process measure for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring inter-hospital transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention that reflects inter-facility communication and urgent mobilization of interventional laboratory resources. Our aim was to determine whether faster activation is associated with improved reperfusion time and outcomes in the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Accelerator-2 Project. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2015 to March 2017, treatment times of 2063 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 12 regions around the United States were stratified by cath lab activation time (first hospital arrival to cath lab activation within [timely] or beyond 20 minutes [delayed]). Median cath lab activation time was 26 minutes, with a delayed activation observed in 1241 (60.2%) patients. Prior cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, arterial hypotension at admission, and black or Latino ethnicity were independent factors of delayed cath lab activation. Timely cath lab activation patients had shorter door-in door-out times (40 versus 68 minutes) and reperfusion times (98 versus 135 minutes) with 80.1% treated within the national goal of ≤120 minutes versus 39.0% in the delayed group. CONCLUSIONS: Cath lab activation within 20 minutes across a geographically diverse group of hospitals was associated with performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within the national goal of ≤120 minutes in >75% of patients. While several confounding factors were associated with delayed activation, this work suggests that this process measure has the potential to direct resources and practices to more timely treatment of patients requiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.


Assuntos
Cateterismo Cardíaco , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Transferência de Pacientes , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Infarto do Miocárdio com Supradesnível do Segmento ST/terapia , Tempo para o Tratamento , Idoso , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Melhoria de Qualidade , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Infarto do Miocárdio com Supradesnível do Segmento ST/diagnóstico por imagem , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA