Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Acad Emerg Med ; 14(3): 210-5, 2007 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17242387

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) in the emergency department (ED) remains problematic. Studies have not been able to identify a cohort of patients that are safe for immediate ED discharge; however, prior studies have not examined the utility of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the 30-day event rate in ED chest pain patients who were diagnosed with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis with the 30-day event rate in the cohort of patients in whom a definitive diagnosis could not be made in the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive ED patients with potential ACS. Data included demographics, medical and cardiac history, laboratory and electrocardiogram results, and whether or not the treating physician ascribed the condition to a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis. The main outcome was death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or revascularization within 30 days, as determined by phone follow-up or medical record review. RESULTS: The investigators enrolled 1,995 patients in the ED who had potential ACSs. Overall, 77 had a final hospital diagnosis of AMI (4%). Within 30 days, 73 patients received revascularization (4%), and 26 died (1%). There were 599 (30%) patients given a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis. Comparing the patients with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis with those without an obvious noncardiac diagnosis, the presence of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis was associated with a reduced risk of an in-hospital triple-composite endpoint (death, MI, and revascularization), with a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19 to 0.55) and 30-day triple-composite endpoint with a risk ratio of 0.45 (95% CI = 0.29 to 0.69); however, patients with a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis still had a 4% event rate at 30 days (95% CI = 2.4% to 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In the ED chest pain patient, the presence of a clear-cut alternative noncardiac diagnosis reduces the likelihood of a composite outcome of death and cardiovascular events within 30 days. However, it does not reduce the event rate to an acceptable level to allow ED discharge of these patients.


Assuntos
Dor no Peito/diagnóstico , Dor no Peito/epidemiologia , Isquemia Miocárdica/diagnóstico , Isquemia Miocárdica/epidemiologia , Distribuição por Idade , Causalidade , Estudos de Coortes , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Feminino , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Isquemia Miocárdica/terapia , Revascularização Miocárdica/estatística & dados numéricos , Razão de Chances , Pennsylvania/epidemiologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Distribuição por Sexo , Análise de Sobrevida
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa