The assessment and management of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction: an international Delphi study.
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.
Taggart Caelan, Ferry Amy V, Chapman Andrew R, Schulberg Stacey D, Bularga Anda, Wereski Ryan, Boeddinghaus Jasper, Kimenai Dorien M, Lowry Matthew T H, Chew Derek P, Cullen Louise, Daniels Lori B, Devereaux P J, French John, Gaggin Hanna K, Huynh Thao, Jacquin Laurent, Jaffe Allan S, Jernberg Tomas, Koronowski Ran, McCarthy Cian, McCord James, Mamas Mamas A, Mickley Hans, Morrow David A, Mueller Christian, Newby L Kristin, Parsonage William, Raphael Claire E, Smer Aiman, Smith Stephen W, Sandoval Yader, Smilowitz Nathaniel R, White Harvey, Eggers Kai M, Lindahl Bertil, Thygesen Kristian, Mills Nicholas L
Аннотация
METHODS AND RESULTS: An international e-Delphi study including experts in type 2 myocardial infarction identified through systematic review was conducted. Participants were asked to describe their approach to (i) definition and diagnosis, (ii) risk stratification, (iii) assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, (iv) specialty management, (v) treatment and secondary prevention, and (vi) communication and rehabilitation. Statements generated in round one were circulated, with consensus defined a priori as ≥70% agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. Where no consensus was reached, statements were amended and recirculated for a final round. The response rate was 56% (38/68), 54% (37/68), and 72% (49/68) in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Following the first round, 67 unique statements were generated across six domains. Overall, consensus was achieved on 64% (43/67) of statements. Consensus was achieved for 42% (5/12) of statements on the diagnosis of type 2 myocardial infarction, 75% (3/4) on risk stratification, 50% (9/18) on the assessment of coronary artery disease and cardiac function, 60% (6/10), on specialty management, 100% (9/9) on treatment and secondary prevention, and 79% (11/15) on communication and rehabilitation.
CONCLUSION: Consensus was obtained across a number of domains for the assessment and management of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction. However, there was limited agreement amongst experts on the diagnostic criteria, which may benefit from refinement.