Brazilian journal of physical therapy · 2016
Analysis of agreement between cardiac risk stratification protocols applied to participants of a center for cardiac rehabilitation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Santos Ana A S, Silva Anne K F, Vanderlei Franciele M, Christofaro Diego G D, Gonçalves Aline F L, Vanderlei Luiz C M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac risk stratification is related to the risk of the occurrence of events induced by exercise. Despite the existence of several protocols to calculate risk stratification, studies indicating that there is similarity between these protocols are still unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between the existing protocols on cardiac risk rating in cardiac patients.
METHOD: The records of 50 patients from a cardiac rehabilitation program were analyzed, from which the following information was extracted: age, sex, weight, height, clinical diagnosis, medical history, risk factors, associated diseases, and the results from the most recent laboratory and complementary tests performed. This information was used for risk stratification of the patients in the protocols of the American College of Sports Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the protocol designed by Frederic J. Pashkow, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the Société Française de Cardiologie, and the Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and the analysis of agreement between the protocols was calculated using the Kappa coefficient. Differences were considered with a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS: Of the 21 analyses of agreement, 12 were considered significant between the protocols used for risk classification, with nine classified as moderate and three as low. No agreements were classified as excellent. Different proportions were observed in each risk category, with significant differences between the protocols for all risk categories.
CONCLUSION: The agreements between the protocols were considered low and moderate and the risk proportions differed between protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between the existing protocols on cardiac risk rating in cardiac patients.
METHOD: The records of 50 patients from a cardiac rehabilitation program were analyzed, from which the following information was extracted: age, sex, weight, height, clinical diagnosis, medical history, risk factors, associated diseases, and the results from the most recent laboratory and complementary tests performed. This information was used for risk stratification of the patients in the protocols of the American College of Sports Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the protocol designed by Frederic J. Pashkow, the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, the Société Française de Cardiologie, and the Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and the analysis of agreement between the protocols was calculated using the Kappa coefficient. Differences were considered with a significance level of 5%.
RESULTS: Of the 21 analyses of agreement, 12 were considered significant between the protocols used for risk classification, with nine classified as moderate and three as low. No agreements were classified as excellent. Different proportions were observed in each risk category, with significant differences between the protocols for all risk categories.
CONCLUSION: The agreements between the protocols were considered low and moderate and the risk proportions differed between protocols.