院前12导联心电图与急性冠状动脉综合征的预后

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart Pub Date : 2025-09-10 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-325780
Timothy John Driscoll, Sarah Black, Glenn Davies, Chris P Gale, Lucia Gavalova, Mary Halter, Chelsey Hughes, Scott Munro, Nigel Rees, Andy Rosser, Helen Snooks, Alan Watkins, Clive Weston, Tom Quinn
{"title":"院前12导联心电图与急性冠状动脉综合征的预后","authors":"Timothy John Driscoll, Sarah Black, Glenn Davies, Chris P Gale, Lucia Gavalova, Mary Halter, Chelsey Hughes, Scott Munro, Nigel Rees, Andy Rosser, Helen Snooks, Alan Watkins, Clive Weston, Tom Quinn","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2025-325780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance/background: </strong>The 12-lead ECG is recommended in clinical guidelines for prehospital assessment of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting to Emergency Medical Services (EMS).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine prehospital ECG (PHECG) utilisation since UK national rollout of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether this is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with ACS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Population-based, linked cohort study using Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project data from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017, related to patients with ACS conveyed by the EMS to hospital in England and Wales.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>PHECG administration.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Proportion of patients where PHECG was recorded, 30-day and 1 year all-cause mortality, use of reperfusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 330 713 eligible patients transferred by EMS, 263 420 patients (79.7%) had PHECG recorded, steadily increasing from 74.2% in 2010 to 85.0% in 2017. Patients who received PHECG were generally younger than those who did not (median age: 70 years vs 75 years), less likely to be female (32.8% vs 41.9%) or to have comorbidities such as diabetes (20.8% vs 24.7%) or peripheral vascular disease (4.1% vs 4.8%). Patients who received PHECG had lower mortality at 30 days (7.1% vs 10.9%), with adjusted OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.80), and at 1 year (14.2% vs 23.2%), with adjusted OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.71). Adjustment accommodated demographic characteristics, comorbidities and medical history. Reperfusion was more frequent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receiving PHECG (84.5% vs 54.7%) with adjusted OR 4.37 (95% CI 4.20 to 4.54), with similar adjustment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of PHECG by EMS for patients with ACS is associated with lower short-term mortality and higher odds of receiving reperfusion for STEMI patients. Administration of PHECG increased steadily over time, but at the end of the study, still 15% of eligible patients did not receive a PHECG.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prehospital 12-lead ECG and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy John Driscoll, Sarah Black, Glenn Davies, Chris P Gale, Lucia Gavalova, Mary Halter, Chelsey Hughes, Scott Munro, Nigel Rees, Andy Rosser, Helen Snooks, Alan Watkins, Clive Weston, Tom Quinn\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2025-325780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance/background: </strong>The 12-lead ECG is recommended in clinical guidelines for prehospital assessment of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting to Emergency Medical Services (EMS).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine prehospital ECG (PHECG) utilisation since UK national rollout of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether this is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with ACS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Population-based, linked cohort study using Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project data from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017, related to patients with ACS conveyed by the EMS to hospital in England and Wales.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>PHECG administration.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Proportion of patients where PHECG was recorded, 30-day and 1 year all-cause mortality, use of reperfusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 330 713 eligible patients transferred by EMS, 263 420 patients (79.7%) had PHECG recorded, steadily increasing from 74.2% in 2010 to 85.0% in 2017. Patients who received PHECG were generally younger than those who did not (median age: 70 years vs 75 years), less likely to be female (32.8% vs 41.9%) or to have comorbidities such as diabetes (20.8% vs 24.7%) or peripheral vascular disease (4.1% vs 4.8%). Patients who received PHECG had lower mortality at 30 days (7.1% vs 10.9%), with adjusted OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.80), and at 1 year (14.2% vs 23.2%), with adjusted OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.71). Adjustment accommodated demographic characteristics, comorbidities and medical history. Reperfusion was more frequent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receiving PHECG (84.5% vs 54.7%) with adjusted OR 4.37 (95% CI 4.20 to 4.54), with similar adjustment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of PHECG by EMS for patients with ACS is associated with lower short-term mortality and higher odds of receiving reperfusion for STEMI patients. Administration of PHECG increased steadily over time, but at the end of the study, still 15% of eligible patients did not receive a PHECG.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-325780\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-325780","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性/背景:临床指南推荐12导联心电图用于急诊医疗服务(EMS)疑似急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者院前评估。目的:确定自英国全国首次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗以来院前心电图(PHECG)的使用情况,以及这是否与ACS患者的临床结果相关。设计:基于人群的关联队列研究,使用心肌缺血国家审计项目2010年1月1日至2017年12月31日的数据,与EMS送往英格兰和威尔士医院的ACS患者相关。暴露:给药。结果:记录PHECG的患者比例,30天和1年全因死亡率,再灌注的使用。结果:在330713例符合条件的EMS转诊患者中,有264420例(79.7%)记录了PHECG,从2010年的74.2%稳步上升至2017年的85.0%。接受PHECG的患者通常比未接受PHECG的患者更年轻(中位年龄:70岁对75岁),女性(32.8%对41.9%)或合并糖尿病(20.8%对24.7%)或周围血管疾病(4.1%对4.8%)的可能性更小。接受PHECG治疗的患者30天死亡率较低(7.1% vs 10.9%),调整后OR为0.77 (95% CI 0.75 - 0.80), 1年死亡率较低(14.2% vs 23.2%),调整后OR为0.69 (95% CI 0.68 - 0.71)。调整适应了人口统计学特征、合并症和病史。接受PHECG的st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者再灌注更为频繁(84.5% vs 54.7%),调整后OR为4.37 (95% CI 4.20 ~ 4.54),调整后相似。结论:EMS对ACS患者使用PHECG与STEMI患者较低的短期死亡率和较高的再灌注几率相关。随着时间的推移,PHECG的使用稳步增加,但在研究结束时,仍有15%的符合条件的患者没有接受PHECG。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prehospital 12-lead ECG and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome.

Importance/background: The 12-lead ECG is recommended in clinical guidelines for prehospital assessment of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting to Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

Objectives: To determine prehospital ECG (PHECG) utilisation since UK national rollout of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether this is associated with clinical outcomes in patients with ACS.

Design: Population-based, linked cohort study using Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project data from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017, related to patients with ACS conveyed by the EMS to hospital in England and Wales.

Exposure: PHECG administration.

Outcomes: Proportion of patients where PHECG was recorded, 30-day and 1 year all-cause mortality, use of reperfusion.

Results: Of 330 713 eligible patients transferred by EMS, 263 420 patients (79.7%) had PHECG recorded, steadily increasing from 74.2% in 2010 to 85.0% in 2017. Patients who received PHECG were generally younger than those who did not (median age: 70 years vs 75 years), less likely to be female (32.8% vs 41.9%) or to have comorbidities such as diabetes (20.8% vs 24.7%) or peripheral vascular disease (4.1% vs 4.8%). Patients who received PHECG had lower mortality at 30 days (7.1% vs 10.9%), with adjusted OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.80), and at 1 year (14.2% vs 23.2%), with adjusted OR 0.69 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.71). Adjustment accommodated demographic characteristics, comorbidities and medical history. Reperfusion was more frequent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receiving PHECG (84.5% vs 54.7%) with adjusted OR 4.37 (95% CI 4.20 to 4.54), with similar adjustment.

Conclusions: Use of PHECG by EMS for patients with ACS is associated with lower short-term mortality and higher odds of receiving reperfusion for STEMI patients. Administration of PHECG increased steadily over time, but at the end of the study, still 15% of eligible patients did not receive a PHECG.

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
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信