0/1-Hour Triage Algorithm for Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Renal Dysfunction.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Twerenbold Raphael, Badertscher Patrick, Boeddinghaus Jasper, Nestelberger Thomas, Wildi Karin, Puelacher Christian, Sabti Zaid, Rubini Gimenez Maria, Tschirky Sandra, du Fay de Lavallaz Jeanne, Kozhuharov Nikola, Sazgary Lorraine, Mueller Deborah, Breidthardt Tobias, Strebel Ivo, Flores Widmer Dayana, Shrestha Samyut, Miró Òscar, Martín-Sánchez F Javier, Morawiec Beata, Parenica Jiri, Geigy Nicolas, Keller Dagmar I, Rentsch Katharina, von Eckardstein Arnold, Osswald Stefan, Reichlin Tobias, Mueller Christian
Аннотация
METHODS: In a prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolling unselected patients presenting with suspected non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to the emergency department, we assessed the diagnostic performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm using hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI in patients with RD, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and compared it to patients with normal renal function. The final diagnosis was centrally adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists using all available information, including cardiac imaging. Safety was quantified as sensitivity in the rule-out zone, accuracy as the specificity in the rule-in zone, and efficacy as the proportion of the overall cohort assigned to either rule-out or rule-in based on the 0- and 1-hour sample.
RESULTS: Among 3254 patients, RD was present in 487 patients (15%). The prevalence of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was substantially higher in patients with RD compared with patients with normal renal function (31% versus 13%, P<0.001). Using hs-cTnT, patients with RD had comparable sensitivity of rule-out (100.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 97.6-100.0] versus 99.2% [95% CI, 97.6-99.8]; P=0.559), lower specificity of rule-in (88.7% [95% CI, 84.8-91.9] versus 96.5% [95% CI, 95.7-97.2]; P<0.001), and lower overall efficacy (51% versus 81%, P<0.001), mainly driven by a much lower percentage of patients eligible for rule-out (18% versus 68%, P<0.001) compared with patients with normal renal function. Using hs-cTnI, patients with RD had comparable sensitivity of rule-out (98.6% [95% CI, 95.0-99.8] versus 98.5% [95% CI, 96.5-99.5]; P=1.0), lower specificity of rule-in (84.4% [95% CI, 79.9-88.3] versus 91.7% [95% CI, 90.5-92.9]; P<0.001), and lower overall efficacy (54% versus 76%, P<0.001; proportion ruled out, 18% versus 58%, P<0.001) compared with patients with normal renal function.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RD, the safety of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour algorithm is high, but specificity of rule-in and overall efficacy are decreased. Modifications of the rule-in and rule-out thresholds did not improve the safety or overall efficacy of the 0/1-hour algorithm.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00470587.