4.5 Article

A clinical prediction rule for early discharge of patients with chest pain

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 1-10

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.08.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: Current risk stratification tools do not identify very-low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without prolonged emergency department (ED) observation, expensive rule-out protocols, or provocative testing. We seek to develop a clinical prediction rule applicable within 2 hours of ED arrival that would miss fewer than 2% of acute coronary syndrome patients and allow discharge within 2 to 3 hours for at least 30% of patients without acute coronary syndrome. Methods: This prospective, cohort study enrolled consenting eligible subjects at least 25 years old at a single site. At 30 days, investigators assigned a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome or no acute coronary syndrome according to predefined explicit definitions. A recursive partitioning model included risk factors, pain characteristics, physical and ECG findings, and cardiac marker results. Results: Of 769 patients studied, 77 (10.0%) had acute myocardial infarction and 88 (11.4%) definite unstable angina. We derived a clinical prediction rule that was 98.8% sensitive and 32.5% specific. Patients have very low risk of acute coronary syndrome if they have a normal initial ECG, no previous ischemic chest pain, and age younger than 40 years. In addition, patients at least 40 years old and with a normal ECG result, no previous ischemic chest pain, and low-risk pain characteristics have very low risk if they have an initial creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) less than 3.0 mu g/L or an initial CK-MB greater than or equal to 3.0 mu g/L but no ECG or serum-marker increase at 2 hours. Conclusion: The Vancouver Chest Pain Rule for early discharge defines a group of patients who can be safely discharged after a brief evaluation in the ED. Prospective validation is needed.

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