Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Emerg Med J ; 33(2): 99-104, 2016 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26362581

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of emergency department (ED) nursing staff risk assessment using an established chest pain risk score alone and when incorporated with presentation high-sensitivity troponin testing as part of an accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP). DESIGN: Prospective observational study comparing nursing and physician risk assessment using the modified Goldman (m-Goldman) score and a predefined ADP, incorporating presentation high-sensitivity troponin. SETTING: A UK District ED. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients, aged ≥18, with suspected cardiac chest pain and non-ischaemic ECG, for whom the treating physician determined serial troponin testing was required. OUTCOME MEASURES: 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: 960 participants were recruited. 912/960 (95.0%) had m-Goldman scores recorded by physicians and 745/960 (77.6%) by nursing staff. The area under the curve of the m-Goldman score in predicting 30-day MACE was 0.647 (95% CI 0.594 to 0.700) for physicians and 0.572 (95% CI 0.510 to 0.634) for nursing staff (p=0.09). When incorporated into an ADP, sensitivity for the rule-out of MACE was 99.2% (95% CI 94.8% to 100%) and 96.7% (90.3% to 99.2%) for physicians and nurses, respectively. One patient in the physician group (0.3%) and three patients (1.1%) in the nursing group were classified as low risk yet had MACE. There was fair agreement in the identification of low-risk patients (kappa 0.31, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of ED nursing staff risk assessment is similar to that of ED physicians and interobserver reliability between assessor groups is fair. When incorporating high-sensitivity troponin testing, a nurse-led ADP has a miss rate of 1.1% for MACE at 30 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Controlled Trials Database (ISRCTN no. 21109279).


Asunto(s)
Síndrome Coronario Agudo/diagnóstico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Evaluación en Enfermería , Medición de Riesgo , Biomarcadores/sangre , Electrocardiografía , Inglaterra , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Médicos , Estudios Prospectivos , Triaje , Troponina/sangre
2.
Heart ; 106(20): 1586-1594, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32371401

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The clinical effectiveness of a 'rule-out' acute coronary syndrome (ACS) strategy for emergency department patients with chest pain, incorporating a single undetectable high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) taken at presentation, together with a non-ischaemic ECG, remains unknown. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial, across eight hospitals in the UK, aimed to establish the clinical effectiveness of an undetectable hs-cTn and ECG (limit of detection and ECG discharge (LoDED)) discharge strategy. Eligible adult patients presented with chest pain; the treating clinician intended to perform investigations to rule out an ACS; the initial ECG was non-ischaemic; and peak symptoms occurred <6 hours previously. Participants were randomised 1:1 to either the LoDED strategy or the usual rule-out strategy. The primary outcome was discharge from the hospital within 4 hours of arrival, without a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) within 30 days. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and March 2019, 632 patients were randomised; 3 were later withdrawn. Of 629 patients (age 53.8 (SD 16.1) years, 41% women), 7% had a MACE within 30 days. For the LoDED strategy, 141 of 309 (46%) patients were discharged within 4 hours, without MACE within 30 days, and for usual care, 114 of 311 (37%); pooled adjusted OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.84 to 2.98). No patient with an initial undetectable hs-cTn had a MACE within 30 days. CONCLUSION: The LoDED strategy facilitates safe early discharge in >40% of patients with chest pain. Clinical effectiveness is variable when compared with existing rule-out strategies and influenced by wider system factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86184521.


Asunto(s)
Síndrome Coronario Agudo/diagnóstico , Angina de Pecho/diagnóstico , Reglas de Decisión Clínica , Electrocardiografía , Alta del Paciente , Troponina/sangre , Síndrome Coronario Agudo/sangre , Síndrome Coronario Agudo/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Angina de Pecho/sangre , Angina de Pecho/terapia , Biomarcadores/sangre , Servicio de Cardiología en Hospital , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Reino Unido
3.
Heart ; 104(8): 665-672, 2018 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28864718

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the limit of detection of high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score combination rule-out strategy suggested within the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Chest Pain of Recent Onset guidelines and establish the optimal TIMI score threshold for clinical use. METHODS: A pooled analysis of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and a non-ischaemic ECG, recruited into six prospective studies, from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. We evaluated the sensitivity of TIMI score thresholds from 0 to 2 alongside hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. RESULTS: Data were available for 3159 patients for hs-cTnT and 4532 for hs-cTnI, of these 376 (11.9%) and 445 (9.8%) had major adverse cardiac events, respectively. Using a TIMI score of 0, the sensitivity for the primary outcome was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%) alongside hs-cTnT and 98.9% (97.4% to 99.6%)%) alongside hs-cTnI, identifying 17.9% and 21.0% of patients as low risk, respectively. For a TIMI score ≤1 sensitivity was 98.9% (97.3% to 99.7%)%) alongside hs-cTnT and 98.4% (96.8% to 99.4%)%) alongside hs-cTnI, identifying 28.1% and 35.7% as low risk, respectively. For TIMI≤2, meta-sensitivity was <98% with either assay. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the rule-out strategy suggested by NICE. The TIMI score threshold suggested for clinical use is 0. The proportion of patients identified as low risk (18%-21%) and suitable for early discharge using this threshold may be sufficient to encourage change of practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ADAPT observational study/IMPACT intervention trial ACTRN12611001069943.ADAPT-ADP randomised controlled trial ACTRN12610000766011. EDACS-ADP randomised controlled trial ACTRN12613000745741. TRUST observational study ISRCTN no. 21109279.


Asunto(s)
Angina Inestable/etiología , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Troponina/metabolismo , Bioensayo , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nueva Zelanda , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Queensland , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA