4.5 Article

Safety of a rapid diagnostic protocol with accelerated stress testing

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 124-128

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.10.020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Most patients at low to intermediate risk for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receive a 12- to 24-hour rule out. Recently, trials have found that a coronary computed tomographic angiography-based strategy is more efficient. If stress testing were performed within the same time frame as coronary computed tomographic angiography, the 2 strategies would be more similar. We tested the hypothesis that stress testing can safely be performed within several hours of presentation. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a university hospital from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, with potential ACS. Patients placed in a clinical pathway that performed stress testing after 2 negative troponin values 2 hours apart were included. We excluded patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction or with an elevated initial troponin. The main outcome was safety of immediate stress testing defined as the absence of death or acute myocardial infarction (defined as elevated troponin within 24 hours after the test). Results: A total of 856 patients who presented with potential ACS were enrolled in the clinical pathway and included in this study. Patients had a median age of 55.0 (interquartile range, 48-62) years. Chest pain was the chief concern in 86%, and pain was present on arrival in 73% of the patients. There were no complications observed during the stress test. There were 0 deaths (95% confidence interval, 0%-0.46%) and 4 acute myocardial infarctions within 24 hours (0.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.14%-1.27%). The peak troponins were small (0.06, 0.07, 0.07, and 0.19 ng/mL). Conclusions: Patients who present to the ED with potential ACS can safely undergo a rapid diagnostic protocol with stress testing. (C) 2013 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