4.5 Article

Usefulness of 64-slice multidetector computed tomography as an initial diagnostic approach in patients with acute chest pain

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 375-383

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2008.03.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recently, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has been proposed as an accurate diagnostic tool to evaluate for coronary artery disease. However, the role of MDCT as part of the initial diagnostic for evaluating acute chest pain is less well established. Methods We prospectively enrolled patients presenting with acute chest pain to the emergency department (ED) and risk stratified them based on the pretest probability for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS): (1) very low, (2) low, (3) intermediate, (4) high, and (5) very high or definite. After exclusion of very low and very high risk patients, 268 patients were randomized to either immediate 64-slice cardiac MDCT or a conventional diagnostic strategy. Number of admissions, ED and hospital length of stay (LOS), and major adverse cardiac events over 30 days of follow-up were compared between the strategies based on the pretest probability for ACS. Results The number of patients ultimately diagnosed with an ACS did not differ between the 2 strategies. Emergency department LOS and total admissions were not different between strategies. Patients, in the MDCT-based strategy had a decreased hospital LOS (P = .049) and fewer admissions deemed unnecessary (P = .007). Reductions in unnecessary admissions were more prominent in intermediate-risk patients (P = .015). None of the patients discharged from the ED in the MDCT-based strategy experienced major adverse cardiac events at follow-up. Conclusion Use of an MDCT-based strategy in the ED as part of the initial diagnostic approach for patients presenting with acute chest pain is safe and efficiently reduces avoidable admissions in patients with an intermediate pretest probability for ACS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据