Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2014
Cost consequences of point-of-care troponin T testing in a Swedish primary health care setting.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Nilsson Staffan, Andersson Agneta, Janzon Magnus, Karlsson Jan-Erik, Levin Lars-Åke
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care troponin T testing (POCT-TnT) for the management of patients with chest pain in primary care.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study with follow-up.
SETTING: Three primary health care (PHC) centres using POCT-TnT and four PHC centres not using POCT-TnT in south-east Sweden.
PATIENTS: All patients ≥ 35 years of age, contacting one of the PHC centres for chest pain, dyspnoea on exertion, unexplained weakness and/or fatigue, with no other probable cause than cardiac, were included. Symptoms must have commenced or worsened during the previous seven days.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emergency referral rates, diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or unstable angina (UA), and costs were collected for 30 days after the patient sought care at the PHC centre.
RESULTS: A total of 196 patients with chest pain were included: 128 in PHC centres with POCT-TnT and 68 in PHC centres without POCT-TnT. Fewer patients from the PHC centres with POCT-TnT (n = 32, 25%) were emergently referred to hospital than from centres without POCT-TnT (n = 29, 43%; p = 0.011). Eight patients (6.2%) from PHC centres with POCT-TnT were diagnosed with AMI or UA compared with six patients (8.8%) from centres without POCT-TnT (p = 0.565). Two patients with AMI or UA were classified as missed cases from PHC centres with POCT-TnT and there were no missed cases from PHC centres without POCT-TnT. SKr290 000 was saved per missed case of AMI or UA.
CONCLUSION: The use of POCT-TnT in primary care may be cost saving but at the expense of missed cases.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study with follow-up.
SETTING: Three primary health care (PHC) centres using POCT-TnT and four PHC centres not using POCT-TnT in south-east Sweden.
PATIENTS: All patients ≥ 35 years of age, contacting one of the PHC centres for chest pain, dyspnoea on exertion, unexplained weakness and/or fatigue, with no other probable cause than cardiac, were included. Symptoms must have commenced or worsened during the previous seven days.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emergency referral rates, diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or unstable angina (UA), and costs were collected for 30 days after the patient sought care at the PHC centre.
RESULTS: A total of 196 patients with chest pain were included: 128 in PHC centres with POCT-TnT and 68 in PHC centres without POCT-TnT. Fewer patients from the PHC centres with POCT-TnT (n = 32, 25%) were emergently referred to hospital than from centres without POCT-TnT (n = 29, 43%; p = 0.011). Eight patients (6.2%) from PHC centres with POCT-TnT were diagnosed with AMI or UA compared with six patients (8.8%) from centres without POCT-TnT (p = 0.565). Two patients with AMI or UA were classified as missed cases from PHC centres with POCT-TnT and there were no missed cases from PHC centres without POCT-TnT. SKr290 000 was saved per missed case of AMI or UA.
CONCLUSION: The use of POCT-TnT in primary care may be cost saving but at the expense of missed cases.