4.5 Article

Killip classification in patients with acute coronary syndrome: insight from a multicenter registry

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 97-103

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2010.10.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sanofi Aventis, Paris
  2. Qatar Telecommunications Company, Doha, Qatar

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic value of the Killip classification at the presentation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In 2007 and over 5 months, 6704 consecutive patients with ACS were enrolled in the Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Patients were categorized according to Killip classification at presentation (Classes I, II, III, and IV). Patients' characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed. High Killip classes were defined in 22% of patients. In comparison to Killip Class I, patients with higher Killip class had greater prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, presented late, were less likely to have angina, and were less likely to receive antiplatelet, statins, and beta-blockers. Classes II, III, and IV were associated with higher adjusted odds of death in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-3.69; OR 6.1, 95% CI 3.41-10.86; and OR 28, 95% CI 15.24-54.70, respectively) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (adjusted OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.24-4.82; OR 3.2,95% 1.49-7.02; and OR 9.8, 95% CI 3.79-25.57, respectively). In conclusion, across ACS, patients with higher Killip class had worse clinical profile and were less likely to be treated with evidence-based therapy. High Killip class was independent predictors of mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Physician in the emergency department should be aware of the importance of clinical examination in the risk stratification in patients presenting with ACS. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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