初级医疗中的胸痛:对排除急性冠状动脉综合征的风险分层工具进行系统回顾。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Simone van den Bulk, Amy Manten, Tobias N Bonten, Ralf E Harskamp
{"title":"初级医疗中的胸痛:对排除急性冠状动脉综合征的风险分层工具进行系统回顾。","authors":"Simone van den Bulk, Amy Manten, Tobias N Bonten, Ralf E Harskamp","doi":"10.1370/afm.3141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":"22 5","pages":"426-436"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419710/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.\",\"authors\":\"Simone van den Bulk, Amy Manten, Tobias N Bonten, Ralf E Harskamp\",\"doi\":\"10.1370/afm.3141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"22 5\",\"pages\":\"426-436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419710/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3141\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3141","RegionNum":2,"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

目的:胸痛经常给全科医生(GPs)的诊断带来挑战。利用风险分层工具可帮助全科医生排除急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS),并做出适当的转诊决定。我们对评估初级医疗机构胸痛风险分层工具的研究进行了系统性回顾,包括肌钙蛋白检测和非肌钙蛋白检测。我们的目的是评估排除 ACS 的工具的性能,并对现有证据进行全面回顾:我们在 PubMed 和 Embase 中检索了截至 2023 年 10 月 9 日有关初级医疗机构中急性胸痛成人患者的文章,这些患者使用了风险分层工具(临床决策规则 [CDR] 和/或单一生物标记物检测)。为了确定符合条件的研究,我们采用了主动学习和后向滚雪球相结合的方法。筛选、数据提取和质量评估(采用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具)由两名研究人员独立完成:结果:在筛选出的 1,204 项研究中,有 14 项纳入了最终审查。九项研究验证了 7 种不同的 CDR,但未检测肌钙蛋白。灵敏度从 75.0% 到 97.0%,阴性预测值 (NPV) 从 82.4% 到 99.7% 不等。没有一项 CDR 的效果优于全科医生的辅助判断。五项研究报告了使用肌钙蛋白测量的策略。使用高敏肌钙蛋白的研究显示诊断准确率最高,灵敏度为83.3%至100%,净现值为98.8%至100%:结论:不使用肌钙蛋白的临床决策规则和使用常规肌钙蛋白的临床决策规则在初级医疗中排除 ACS 的灵敏度不足,因此不建议将其作为独立的工具。高敏肌钙蛋白策略很有前景,但研究有限。在实施前还需要在初级医疗中进行进一步的前瞻性验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Purpose: Chest pain frequently poses a diagnostic challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Utilizing risk stratification tools might help GPs to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and make appropriate referral decisions. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating risk stratification tools for chest pain in primary care settings, both with and without troponin assays. Our aims were to assess the performance of tools for ruling out ACS and to provide a comprehensive review of the current evidence.

Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles up to October 9, 2023 concerning adult patients with acute chest pain in primary care settings, for whom risk stratification tools (clinical decision rules [CDRs] and/or single biomarker tests) were used. To identify eligible studies, a combination of active learning and backward snowballing was applied. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment (following the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool) were performed independently by 2 researchers.

Results: Of the 1,204 studies screened, 14 were included in the final review. Nine studies validated 7 different CDRs without troponin. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0% to 97.0%, and negative predictive values (NPV) ranged from 82.4% to 99.7%. None of the CDRs outperformed the unaided judgment of GP's. Five studies reported on strategies using troponin measurements. Studies using high-sensitivity troponin showed highest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity 83.3% to 100% and NPV 98.8% to 100%.

Conclusion: Clinical decision rules without troponin and the use of conventional troponin showed insufficient sensitivity to rule out ACS in primary care and are not recommended as standalone tools. High-sensitivity troponin strategies are promising, but studies are limited. Further prospective validation in primary care is needed before implementation.

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
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
×
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