预测接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的无回流现象:临床预测模型的系统回顾。

IF 2.6 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Reza Ebrahimi, Mahdi Rahmani, Parisa Fallahtafti, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Alireza Azarboo, Arash Jalali, Mehdi Mehrani
{"title":"预测接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的无回流现象:临床预测模型的系统回顾。","authors":"Reza Ebrahimi, Mahdi Rahmani, Parisa Fallahtafti, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Alireza Azarboo, Arash Jalali, Mehdi Mehrani","doi":"10.1177/17539447241290438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The no-reflow (NRF) phenomenon is the \"Achilles heel\" of interventionists after performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No definitive treatment has been proposed for NRF, and preventive strategies are central to improving care for patients who develop NRF.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this study, we aim to investigate the clinical prediction models developed to predict NRF in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were observed. Studies that developed clinical prediction modeling for NRF after primary PCI in STEMI patients were included. Data extraction was performed using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool was used for critical appraisal of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three most common predictors were age, total ischemic time, and preoperative thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade. Most of the included studies internally validated their developed model via various methods: random split, bootstrapping, and cross-validation. Only three studies (18%) externally validated their model. Six studies (37%) reported a calibration plot with or without the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The reported area under the curve ranged from 0.648 to 0.925. The most common biases were in the statistical domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical prediction models aid in individualizing care for STEMI patients with NRF after primary PCI. Of the 16 included studies, we report four to have a low risk of bias and low concern with regard to our research question, which should undergo external validation with or without updating in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23035,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease","volume":"18 ","pages":"17539447241290438"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting the no-reflow phenomenon in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review of clinical prediction models.\",\"authors\":\"Reza Ebrahimi, Mahdi Rahmani, Parisa Fallahtafti, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Alireza Azarboo, Arash Jalali, Mehdi Mehrani\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17539447241290438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The no-reflow (NRF) phenomenon is the \\\"Achilles heel\\\" of interventionists after performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No definitive treatment has been proposed for NRF, and preventive strategies are central to improving care for patients who develop NRF.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this study, we aim to investigate the clinical prediction models developed to predict NRF in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were observed. Studies that developed clinical prediction modeling for NRF after primary PCI in STEMI patients were included. Data extraction was performed using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool was used for critical appraisal of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three most common predictors were age, total ischemic time, and preoperative thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade. Most of the included studies internally validated their developed model via various methods: random split, bootstrapping, and cross-validation. Only three studies (18%) externally validated their model. Six studies (37%) reported a calibration plot with or without the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The reported area under the curve ranged from 0.648 to 0.925. The most common biases were in the statistical domain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical prediction models aid in individualizing care for STEMI patients with NRF after primary PCI. Of the 16 included studies, we report four to have a low risk of bias and low concern with regard to our research question, which should undergo external validation with or without updating in future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"17539447241290438\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17539447241290438\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17539447241290438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者实施经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后,无回流(NRF)现象是介入医师的 "致命弱点"。目前还没有针对 NRF 的明确治疗方法,因此预防策略是改善 NRF 患者护理的核心:在本研究中,我们旨在调查为预测接受初级 PCI 的 STEMI 患者 NRF 而开发的临床预测模型:数据来源和方法数据来源和方法:遵循系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。纳入了为 STEMI 患者接受初级 PCI 后的 NRF 建立临床预测模型的研究。数据提取采用预测模型研究系统性综述批判性评估和数据提取核对表(CHARMS)进行。预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)用于对纳入研究进行批判性评估:最常见的三个预测因子是年龄、总缺血时间和心肌梗死术前溶栓血流分级。大部分纳入的研究通过随机拆分、自引导和交叉验证等多种方法对其开发的模型进行了内部验证。只有三项研究(18%)对其模型进行了外部验证。有六项研究(37%)报告了校准图,其中包括或不包括 Hosmer-Lemeshow 检验。报告的曲线下面积从 0.648 到 0.925 不等。最常见的偏差出现在统计领域:结论:临床预测模型有助于对初级PCI术后患有NRF的STEMI患者进行个体化治疗。在纳入的 16 项研究中,我们发现有 4 项研究的偏倚风险较低,对我们的研究问题的关注度也较低,在未来的研究中,无论是否更新,这些研究都应进行外部验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predicting the no-reflow phenomenon in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review of clinical prediction models.

Background: The no-reflow (NRF) phenomenon is the "Achilles heel" of interventionists after performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No definitive treatment has been proposed for NRF, and preventive strategies are central to improving care for patients who develop NRF.

Objectives: In this study, we aim to investigate the clinical prediction models developed to predict NRF in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources and methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were observed. Studies that developed clinical prediction modeling for NRF after primary PCI in STEMI patients were included. Data extraction was performed using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS) checklist. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool was used for critical appraisal of the included studies.

Results: The three most common predictors were age, total ischemic time, and preoperative thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade. Most of the included studies internally validated their developed model via various methods: random split, bootstrapping, and cross-validation. Only three studies (18%) externally validated their model. Six studies (37%) reported a calibration plot with or without the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The reported area under the curve ranged from 0.648 to 0.925. The most common biases were in the statistical domain.

Conclusion: Clinical prediction models aid in individualizing care for STEMI patients with NRF after primary PCI. Of the 16 included studies, we report four to have a low risk of bias and low concern with regard to our research question, which should undergo external validation with or without updating in future studies.

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
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal is aimed at clinicians and researchers from the cardiovascular disease field and will be a forum for all views and reviews relating to this discipline.Topics covered will include: ·arteriosclerosis ·cardiomyopathies ·coronary artery disease ·diabetes ·heart failure ·hypertension ·metabolic syndrome ·obesity ·peripheral arterial disease ·stroke ·arrhythmias ·genetics
×
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