International journal of emergency medicine · 2010
Can ABCD score predict the need for in-hospital intervention in patients with transient ischemic attacks?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lou Min, Safdar Adnan, Edlow Jonathan A, Caplan Louis, Kumar Sandeep, Schlaug Gottfried, Searls D Eric, Goddeau Richard P, Selim Magdy
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The ABCD(2) score is increasingly being used to triage patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Whether the score can predict the need for in-hospital intervention (IHI), other than initiation of antiplatelets and statins, is unknown.
AIMS: The ability of the ABCD(2) score to predict IHI would strengthen the rationale to use it as a decision-making tool. We thus conducted this study to investigate the relationship between the ABCD(2) score and IHI.
METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from consecutive TIA patients over 12 months. We determined ABCD(2) upon admission and collected the results of in-hospital evaluation, treatments initiated during hospitalization, and follow-up status. We defined IHI as arterial revascularization or anticoagulation required during admission. We used chi-square for trend to examine the association between ABCD(2) and IHI.
RESULTS: We studied 121 patients. Fourteen (12%) had small infarcts on diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; 38 (31%) had a new risk factor recognized during admission [hyperlipidemia (n = 9), hypertension (1), diabetes (1), carotid stenosis >/= 50% (16), other arterial occlusive lesions (7), and potential cardioembolic source (4)]. Their percentages increased with higher ABCD(2) scores. However, among 12 patients (10%) with IHI, ABCD(2) score categories were equally distributed (10% in 0-3, 9% in 4-5, and 10% in 6-7; p = 0.8). One patient (0.8%) worsened during hospitalization; none had a stroke during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Patients with an ABCD(2) score </= 3 had an equal chance of requiring IHI as those with a score of 4-7. The decision to admit TIA patients based on the ABCD(2) score alone is not supported by our experience and requires further study.
AIMS: The ability of the ABCD(2) score to predict IHI would strengthen the rationale to use it as a decision-making tool. We thus conducted this study to investigate the relationship between the ABCD(2) score and IHI.
METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data from consecutive TIA patients over 12 months. We determined ABCD(2) upon admission and collected the results of in-hospital evaluation, treatments initiated during hospitalization, and follow-up status. We defined IHI as arterial revascularization or anticoagulation required during admission. We used chi-square for trend to examine the association between ABCD(2) and IHI.
RESULTS: We studied 121 patients. Fourteen (12%) had small infarcts on diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; 38 (31%) had a new risk factor recognized during admission [hyperlipidemia (n = 9), hypertension (1), diabetes (1), carotid stenosis >/= 50% (16), other arterial occlusive lesions (7), and potential cardioembolic source (4)]. Their percentages increased with higher ABCD(2) scores. However, among 12 patients (10%) with IHI, ABCD(2) score categories were equally distributed (10% in 0-3, 9% in 4-5, and 10% in 6-7; p = 0.8). One patient (0.8%) worsened during hospitalization; none had a stroke during follow-up.
CONCLUSION: Patients with an ABCD(2) score </= 3 had an equal chance of requiring IHI as those with a score of 4-7. The decision to admit TIA patients based on the ABCD(2) score alone is not supported by our experience and requires further study.