Literature DB >> 24380497

An examination of clinical intuition in risk assessment among acute coronary syndromes patients: observations from a prospective multi-center international observational registry.

Derek P Chew1, Craig Juergens2, John French2, Will Parsonage3, Matthew Horsfall4, David Brieger5, Stephen Quinn1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As there are limited data evaluating "clinical intuition" in risk prediction among acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients. We evaluated the relationship between perceived and "scored" risk in ACS patients, and their association with care and outcome. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Within a prospective multi-center international ACS study from 58 hospitals in Australia, China, India and Russia enrolling patients between May 2009 and February 2011, at least 2 physicians involved in each patient's care estimated the patient's untreated risk, and the change in risk with invasive management. The association between clinical factors and physician perceived risk was assessed with multilevel mixed-effects regression models. Risk underestimation was defined as when physician-predicted risk was lower than GRACE score calculated risk and was used to compare clinical care and 6 month mortality. In total, 1542 patients and 4230 patient-specific physicians' estimates were obtained. By 6 months 48/1542 (3.1%) of patients had died compared with an estimated rate of 2.5% with full treatment. Advanced age, hypotension, tachycardia and ST changes on ECG were associated with increased perceived risk, while female gender was associated with lower perceived risk. Clinician risk underestimation was associated with less guideline therapy and higher 6-month mortality (not underestimated: 10/967 (1.0%) vs. one physician underestimated: 25/429 (5.8%) vs. all physician's underestimated: 13/146 (8.9%), any underestimation vs. no underestimation adjusted OR: 6.0 [95% CI: 2.3-15.5, p<0.001]).
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical risk prediction using established risk characteristics is not consistently observed in clinical practice. Studies evaluating the implementation and outcomes associated with objective risk prediction are warranted.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute coronary syndromes; Clinical intuition; Risk prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24380497     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.12.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cardiol        ISSN: 0167-5273            Impact factor:   4.164


  11 in total

1.  Objective Risk Assessment vs Standard Care for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Derek P Chew; Karice Hyun; Erin Morton; Matt Horsfall; Graham S Hillis; Clara K Chow; Stephen Quinn; Mario D'Souza; Andrew T Yan; Chris P Gale; Shaun G Goodman; Keith Fox; David Brieger
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 14.676

2.  Selecting patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome for coronary angiography: a nationwide clinical vignette study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Josien Engel; Judith M Poldervaart; Ineke van der Wulp; Johannes B Reitsma; Martine C de Bruijne; Jeroen J H Bunge; Maarten J Cramer; Wouter J Tietge; Ruben Uijlings; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Development and validation of a prognostic model for predicting 30-day mortality risk in medical patients in emergency department (ED).

Authors:  Duc T Ha; Tam Q Dang; Ngoc V Tran; Thao N T Pham; Nguyen D Nguyen; Tuan V Nguyen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Impact of patient's health-related quality of life on physicians' therapy and perceived benefit in acute coronary syndromes: protocol for a systemic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

Authors:  Billingsley Kaambwa; Hailay Gesesew; Matthew Horsfall; Derek P Chew
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Predicting Long-Term Mortality after Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Machine Learning Techniques and Hematological Markers.

Authors:  Konrad Pieszko; Jarosław Hiczkiewicz; Paweł Budzianowski; Jan Budzianowski; Janusz Rzeźniczak; Karolina Pieszko; Paweł Burchardt
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.434

6.  Understanding factors that influence the use of risk scoring instruments in the management of patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the Netherlands: a qualitative study of health care practitioners' perceptions.

Authors:  Josien Engel; Marie-Julie Heeren; Ineke van der Wulp; Martine C de Bruijne; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  A cross-sectional multicentre study of cardiac risk score use in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Josien Engel; Ineke van der Wulp; Martine de Bruijne; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Antithrombotic treatment tailoring and risk score evaluation in elderly patients diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Alexandru Nicolae Mischie; Catalina Liliana Andrei; Crina Sinescu; Gani Bajraktari; Eugen Ivan; Georgios Nikolaos Chatziathanasiou; Michele Schiariti
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.327

9.  Evaluation of the impact of the GRACE risk score on the management and outcome of patients hospitalised with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome in the UK: protocol of the UKGRIS cluster-randomised registry-based trial.

Authors:  Colin C Everett; Keith Aa Fox; Catherine Reynolds; Catherine Fernandez; Linda Sharples; Deborah D Stocken; Kathryn Carruthers; Harry Hemingway; Andrew T Yan; Shaun G Goodman; David Brieger; Derek P Chew; Chris P Gale
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Contemporary Revascularization Dilemmas in Older Adults.

Authors:  Sonali Kumar; Michael McDaniel; Habib Samady; Farshad Forouzandeh
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 5.501

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.