超声心动图壁运动评分指数对st段抬高型心肌梗死的预后价值。

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-11-10 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/8343785
Michael L Savage, Karen Hay, Bonita Anderson, Gregory Scalia, Darryl Burstow, Dale Murdoch, Isuru Ranasinghe, Owen Christopher Raffel
{"title":"超声心动图壁运动评分指数对st段抬高型心肌梗死的预后价值。","authors":"Michael L Savage,&nbsp;Karen Hay,&nbsp;Bonita Anderson,&nbsp;Gregory Scalia,&nbsp;Darryl Burstow,&nbsp;Dale Murdoch,&nbsp;Isuru Ranasinghe,&nbsp;Owen Christopher Raffel","doi":"10.1155/2022/8343785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When compared to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), previous studies have suggested the superiority of wall motion score index (WMSI) in predicting cardiac events in patients who have suffered acute myocardial infarction. However, there are limited studies assessing WMSI and mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to compare the prognostic value of WMSI in a cohort of STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparison of WMSI, LVEF, and all-cause mortality in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI between January 2008 and December 2020 was performed. The prognostic value of WMSI, LVEF, and traditional risk scores (TIMI, GRACE) were compared using multivariable logistic regression modelling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1181 patients, 27 died within 30-days (2.3%) and 49 died within 12 months (4.2%). WMSI ≥1.8 was associated with poorer survival at 12-months (9.2% vs 1.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). When used as the only classifier for predicting 12-month mortality, the discriminatory ability of WMSI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68-0.84) was significantly better than LVEF (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61-0.79; <i>p</i>=0.034). After multivariable modelling, the AUC was comparable between models with either WMSI (AUC: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85-0.94) or LVEF (AUC: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.83-0.92; <i>p</i> < 0.08) yet performed significantly better than TIMI (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79; <i>p</i> < 0.001), or GRACE (AUC: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.71; <i>p</i> < 0.001) risk scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When examined individually, WMSI is a superior predictor of 12-month mortality over LVEF in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. When examined in multivariable predictive models, WMSI and LVEF perform very well at predicting 12-month mortality, especially when compared to existing STEMI risk scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"8343785"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9671736/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Wall Motion Score Index in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.\",\"authors\":\"Michael L Savage,&nbsp;Karen Hay,&nbsp;Bonita Anderson,&nbsp;Gregory Scalia,&nbsp;Darryl Burstow,&nbsp;Dale Murdoch,&nbsp;Isuru Ranasinghe,&nbsp;Owen Christopher Raffel\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/8343785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When compared to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), previous studies have suggested the superiority of wall motion score index (WMSI) in predicting cardiac events in patients who have suffered acute myocardial infarction. However, there are limited studies assessing WMSI and mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to compare the prognostic value of WMSI in a cohort of STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparison of WMSI, LVEF, and all-cause mortality in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI between January 2008 and December 2020 was performed. The prognostic value of WMSI, LVEF, and traditional risk scores (TIMI, GRACE) were compared using multivariable logistic regression modelling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1181 patients, 27 died within 30-days (2.3%) and 49 died within 12 months (4.2%). WMSI ≥1.8 was associated with poorer survival at 12-months (9.2% vs 1.5%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). When used as the only classifier for predicting 12-month mortality, the discriminatory ability of WMSI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68-0.84) was significantly better than LVEF (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61-0.79; <i>p</i>=0.034). After multivariable modelling, the AUC was comparable between models with either WMSI (AUC: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85-0.94) or LVEF (AUC: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.83-0.92; <i>p</i> < 0.08) yet performed significantly better than TIMI (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79; <i>p</i> < 0.001), or GRACE (AUC: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.71; <i>p</i> < 0.001) risk scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When examined individually, WMSI is a superior predictor of 12-month mortality over LVEF in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. When examined in multivariable predictive models, WMSI and LVEF perform very well at predicting 12-month mortality, especially when compared to existing STEMI risk scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"8343785\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9671736/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8343785\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8343785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:与左心室射血分数(LVEF)相比,先前的研究表明壁运动评分指数(WMSI)在预测急性心肌梗死患者心脏事件方面具有优势。然而,评估st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的WMSI和死亡率的研究有限。我们的目的是比较WMSI在接受初级经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的STEMI患者队列中的预后价值。方法:比较2008年1月至2020年12月间接受初级PCI治疗的STEMI患者的WMSI、LVEF和全因死亡率。采用多变量logistic回归模型比较WMSI、LVEF和传统风险评分(TIMI、GRACE)的预后价值。结果:1181例患者中,30天内死亡27例(2.3%),12个月内死亡49例(4.2%)。WMSI≥1.8与12个月生存率较差相关(9.2% vs 1.5%;P < 0.001)。当作为预测12个月死亡率的唯一分类器时,WMSI(曲线下面积(AUC))的区分能力:0.77;95% CI: 0.68-0.84)显著优于LVEF (AUC: 0.71;95% ci: 0.61-0.79;p = 0.034)。多变量建模后,WMSI (AUC: 0.89;95% CI: 0.85-0.94)或LVEF (AUC: 0.87;95% ci: 0.83-0.92;p < 0.08),但显著优于TIMI (AUC: 0.71;95% ci: 0.62-0.79;p < 0.001)或GRACE (AUC: 0.63;95% ci: 0.54-0.71;P < 0.001)风险评分。结论:当单独检查时,WMSI是STEMI患者接受初级PCI治疗的12个月死亡率优于LVEF的预测因子。当在多变量预测模型中进行检验时,WMSI和LVEF在预测12个月死亡率方面表现非常好,特别是与现有的STEMI风险评分相比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Wall Motion Score Index in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Wall Motion Score Index in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Wall Motion Score Index in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The Prognostic Value of Echocardiographic Wall Motion Score Index in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Background: When compared to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), previous studies have suggested the superiority of wall motion score index (WMSI) in predicting cardiac events in patients who have suffered acute myocardial infarction. However, there are limited studies assessing WMSI and mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to compare the prognostic value of WMSI in a cohort of STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: A comparison of WMSI, LVEF, and all-cause mortality in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI between January 2008 and December 2020 was performed. The prognostic value of WMSI, LVEF, and traditional risk scores (TIMI, GRACE) were compared using multivariable logistic regression modelling.

Results: Among 1181 patients, 27 died within 30-days (2.3%) and 49 died within 12 months (4.2%). WMSI ≥1.8 was associated with poorer survival at 12-months (9.2% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001). When used as the only classifier for predicting 12-month mortality, the discriminatory ability of WMSI (area under the curve (AUC): 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68-0.84) was significantly better than LVEF (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61-0.79; p=0.034). After multivariable modelling, the AUC was comparable between models with either WMSI (AUC: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85-0.94) or LVEF (AUC: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.83-0.92; p < 0.08) yet performed significantly better than TIMI (AUC: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001), or GRACE (AUC: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.71; p < 0.001) risk scores.

Conclusions: When examined individually, WMSI is a superior predictor of 12-month mortality over LVEF in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. When examined in multivariable predictive models, WMSI and LVEF perform very well at predicting 12-month mortality, especially when compared to existing STEMI risk scores.

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
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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