Literature DB >> 27469348

Review article: Diagnostic accuracy of risk stratification tools for patients with chest pain in the rural emergency department: A systematic review.

Tina Roche1,2, Natasha Jennings3, Stuart Clifford4, Jane O'connell5, Matthew Lutze6,7, Edward Gosden5, N Fionna Hadden8, Glenn Gardner5.   

Abstract

Risk stratification tools for patients presenting to rural EDs with undifferentiated chest pain enable early definitive treatment in high-risk patients. This systematic review compares the most commonly used risk stratification tools used to predict the risk of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) for patients presenting to rural EDs with chest pain. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and Embase for studies published between January 2011 and January 2015 was undertaken. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 criteria and the PRISMA guidelines.Eleven studies using eight risk stratification tools met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of MACE in the patients stratified as suitable for discharge, and the percentage of patients whose scores would have recommended admission that did not experience a MACE event were used as comparisons. Using the findings of a survey of emergency physicians that found a 1% MACE rate acceptable in discharged patients, the EDACS-ADP was considered the best performer. EDACS-ADP had one of the lowest rates of MACE in those discharged (3/1148, 0.3%) and discharged one of the highest percentage of patients (44.5%). Only the GRACE tool discharged more patients (69% - all patients with scores <100) but had a MACE rate of 0.3% in discharged patients. The HFA/CSANZ guidelines achieved zero cases of MACE but discharged only 1.3% of patients.EDACS-ADP can potentially increase diagnostic efficiency of patients presenting at ED with chest pain. Further assessment of tool in a rural context is recommended.
© 2016 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chest pain; diagnostic accuracy; emergency service; risk score; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27469348     DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.12622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med Australas        ISSN: 1742-6723            Impact factor:   2.151


  4 in total

1.  Indirect comparison of TIMI, HEART and GRACE for predicting major cardiovascular events in patients admitted to the emergency department with acute chest pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun Ke; Yiwei Chen; Xiaoping Wang; Zhiyong Wu; Feng Chen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  A prospective multi-centre study assessing the safety and effectiveness following the implementation of an accelerated chest pain pathway using point-of-care troponin for use in New Zealand rural hospital and primary care settings.

Authors:  Rory Miller; Garry Nixon; John W Pickering; Tim Stokes; Robin M Turner; Joanna Young; Marc Gutenstein; Michelle Smith; Tim Norman; Antony Watson; Peter George; Gerald Devlin; Stephen Du Toit; Martin Than
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2022-06-14

3.  Comparison of nine coronary risk scores in evaluating patients presenting to hospital with undifferentiated chest pain.

Authors:  Henry Wamala; Leena Aggarwal; Anne Bernard; Ian A Scott
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2018-12-13

4.  Implementation and evaluation of a rural general practice assessment pathway for possible cardiac chest pain using point-of-care troponin testing: a pilot study.

Authors:  Tim Norman; Joanna Young; Jo Scott Jones; Gishani Egan; John Pickering; Stephen Du Toit; Fraser Hamilton; Rory Miller; Chris Frampton; Gerard Devlin; Peter George; Martin Than
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 3.006

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.