非工作时间基层医疗机构的胸痛电话分诊:排除急性冠状动脉综合征的基于症状的预测规则的外部验证。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Amy Manten, Ralf E Harskamp, Wim B Busschers, Eric P Moll van Charante, Jelle C L Himmelreich
{"title":"非工作时间基层医疗机构的胸痛电话分诊:排除急性冠状动脉综合征的基于症状的预测规则的外部验证。","authors":"Amy Manten, Ralf E Harskamp, Wim B Busschers, Eric P Moll van Charante, Jelle C L Himmelreich","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmae028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telephone triage is pivotal for evaluating the urgency of patient care, and in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Triage Standard (NTS) demonstrates moderate discrimination for chest pain. To address this, the Safety First Prediction Rule (SFPR) was developed to improve the safety of ruling out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during telephone triage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an external validation of the SFPR using data from the TRACE study, a retrospective cohort study in out-of-hours primary care. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy assessment for ACS, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major events within 6 weeks. Moreover, we compared its performance with that of the NTS algorithm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1404 included patients (57.3% female, 6.8% ACS, 8.6% MACE), the SFPR demonstrated good discrimination for ACS (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.75-0.83) and MACE (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.0.76-0.82). Calibration was satisfactory, with overestimation observed in high-risk patients for ACS. The SFPR (risk threshold 2.5%) trended toward higher sensitivity (95.8% vs. 86.3%) and negative predictive value (99.3% vs. 97.6%) with a lower negative likelihood ratio (0.10 vs. 0.34) than the NTS algorithm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SFPR proved robust for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain seeking out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands. Further prospective validation and implementation are warranted to refine and establish the rule's clinical utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":" ","pages":"832-840"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461144/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telephone triage of chest pain in out-of-hours primary care: external validation of a symptom-based prediction rule to rule out acute coronary syndromes.\",\"authors\":\"Amy Manten, Ralf E Harskamp, Wim B Busschers, Eric P Moll van Charante, Jelle C L Himmelreich\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmae028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Telephone triage is pivotal for evaluating the urgency of patient care, and in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Triage Standard (NTS) demonstrates moderate discrimination for chest pain. To address this, the Safety First Prediction Rule (SFPR) was developed to improve the safety of ruling out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during telephone triage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an external validation of the SFPR using data from the TRACE study, a retrospective cohort study in out-of-hours primary care. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy assessment for ACS, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major events within 6 weeks. Moreover, we compared its performance with that of the NTS algorithm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1404 included patients (57.3% female, 6.8% ACS, 8.6% MACE), the SFPR demonstrated good discrimination for ACS (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.75-0.83) and MACE (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.0.76-0.82). Calibration was satisfactory, with overestimation observed in high-risk patients for ACS. The SFPR (risk threshold 2.5%) trended toward higher sensitivity (95.8% vs. 86.3%) and negative predictive value (99.3% vs. 97.6%) with a lower negative likelihood ratio (0.10 vs. 0.34) than the NTS algorithm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SFPR proved robust for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain seeking out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands. Further prospective validation and implementation are warranted to refine and establish the rule's clinical utility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"832-840\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461144/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae028\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介电话分诊对于评估患者护理的紧迫性至关重要,而在荷兰,荷兰分诊标准(NTS)对胸痛的分辨能力一般。为此,我们开发了安全第一预测规则(Safety First Prediction Rule,SFPR),以提高电话分诊过程中排除急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的安全性:我们利用 TRACE 研究的数据对 SFPR 进行了外部验证,该研究是一项针对非工作时间基层医疗机构的回顾性队列研究。我们评估了对 ACS、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)和 6 周内主要事件的诊断准确性评估。此外,我们还将其性能与 NTS 算法进行了比较:在纳入的 1404 名患者中(57.3% 为女性,6.8% 为 ACS,8.6% 为 MACE),SFPR 对 ACS(C 统计量:0.79;95%-CI:0.75-0.83)和 MACE(C 统计量:0.79;95%-CI:0.0.76-0.82)具有良好的区分度。校准结果令人满意,在 ACS 高危患者中观察到高估。与 NTS 算法相比,SFPR(风险阈值 2.5%)的灵敏度(95.8% 对 86.3%)和阴性预测值(99.3% 对 97.6%)呈上升趋势,阴性似然比(0.10 对 0.34)更低:事实证明,在荷兰,SFPR 可用于对寻求非工作时间初级医疗服务的急性胸痛患者进行风险分层。有必要进一步进行前瞻性验证和实施,以完善和确定该规则的临床实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Telephone triage of chest pain in out-of-hours primary care: external validation of a symptom-based prediction rule to rule out acute coronary syndromes.

Introduction: Telephone triage is pivotal for evaluating the urgency of patient care, and in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Triage Standard (NTS) demonstrates moderate discrimination for chest pain. To address this, the Safety First Prediction Rule (SFPR) was developed to improve the safety of ruling out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during telephone triage.

Methods: We conducted an external validation of the SFPR using data from the TRACE study, a retrospective cohort study in out-of-hours primary care. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy assessment for ACS, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major events within 6 weeks. Moreover, we compared its performance with that of the NTS algorithm.

Results: Among 1404 included patients (57.3% female, 6.8% ACS, 8.6% MACE), the SFPR demonstrated good discrimination for ACS (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.75-0.83) and MACE (C-statistic: 0.79; 95%-CI: 0.0.76-0.82). Calibration was satisfactory, with overestimation observed in high-risk patients for ACS. The SFPR (risk threshold 2.5%) trended toward higher sensitivity (95.8% vs. 86.3%) and negative predictive value (99.3% vs. 97.6%) with a lower negative likelihood ratio (0.10 vs. 0.34) than the NTS algorithm.

Conclusion: The SFPR proved robust for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain seeking out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands. Further prospective validation and implementation are warranted to refine and establish the rule's clinical utility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信