F. Ramezani, S. Ahmadi, Gholamreza Faridaalee, Alireza Baratloo, M. Yousefifard
{"title":"曼彻斯特急性冠状动脉综合征决策规则在急性冠状动脉综合症检测中的价值;系统综述与荟萃分析","authors":"F. Ramezani, S. Ahmadi, Gholamreza Faridaalee, Alireza Baratloo, M. Yousefifard","doi":"10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.24027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There is still no consensus on the value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule in detecting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analyzes is to summarize the clinical evidence in the evaluation of the value of MACS in the diagnosis of ACS. Methods: A literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes included acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Data were analyzed in the STATA 14.0 statistical program and the results were reported as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Finally, 8 articles included in the meta-analysis. The area under the SROC of MACS was excellent in rule out of AMI (AUC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99) and MACE (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS/history electrocardiogram alone MACS (HE-MACS) in the rule out of AMI were0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.37), respectively, and for the original MACS were in order 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.20-0.34),. The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS / HE-MACS in the rule out of MACE were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.39) compared to the 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22-0.33) for the original MACS. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that original MACS, troponin-only MACS, and HE-MACS are able to rule out AMI and MACE. However, further studies are needed in developing countries to confirm its external validity.","PeriodicalId":11681,"journal":{"name":"Emergency","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"F. Ramezani, S. Ahmadi, Gholamreza Faridaalee, Alireza Baratloo, M. Yousefifard\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.24027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: There is still no consensus on the value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule in detecting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analyzes is to summarize the clinical evidence in the evaluation of the value of MACS in the diagnosis of ACS. Methods: A literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes included acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Data were analyzed in the STATA 14.0 statistical program and the results were reported as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Finally, 8 articles included in the meta-analysis. The area under the SROC of MACS was excellent in rule out of AMI (AUC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99) and MACE (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS/history electrocardiogram alone MACS (HE-MACS) in the rule out of AMI were0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.37), respectively, and for the original MACS were in order 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.20-0.34),. The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS / HE-MACS in the rule out of MACE were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.39) compared to the 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22-0.33) for the original MACS. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that original MACS, troponin-only MACS, and HE-MACS are able to rule out AMI and MACE. However, further studies are needed in developing countries to confirm its external validity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.24027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.24027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
引言:关于曼彻斯特急性冠状动脉综合征(MACS)决策规则在检测急性冠状动脉综合症(ACS)中的价值,目前还没有达成共识。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是总结评估MACS在ACS诊断中价值的临床证据。方法:在Medline、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science数据库上进行文献检索。结果包括急性心肌梗死(AMI)和主要心脏不良事件(MACE)。数据在STATA 14.0统计程序中进行分析,结果报告为受试者操作特征总结(SROC)、敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性似然比以及95%置信区间(95%CI)的诊断优势比。结果:共有8篇文章纳入荟萃分析。MACS的SROC下面积在排除AMI(AUC=0.99,95%CI:0.97至0.99)和MACE(AUC=0.097,95%CI:0.95至0.98)中表现优异,与原始MACS的0.99(95%CI:0.98-0.99)和0.26(95%CI:0.20-0.34)相比,排除MACE的仅肌钙蛋白的MACS/HE-MACS的敏感性和特异性分别为0.94(95%CI:0.92-0.96)和0.22(95%CI=0.12-0.39)。结论:本研究结果表明,原始MACS、仅肌钙蛋白的MACS和HE-MACS能够排除AMI和MACE。然而,还需要在发展中国家进行进一步的研究,以确认其外部有效性。
Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Introduction: There is still no consensus on the value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule in detecting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analyzes is to summarize the clinical evidence in the evaluation of the value of MACS in the diagnosis of ACS. Methods: A literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes included acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Data were analyzed in the STATA 14.0 statistical program and the results were reported as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Finally, 8 articles included in the meta-analysis. The area under the SROC of MACS was excellent in rule out of AMI (AUC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99) and MACE (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS/history electrocardiogram alone MACS (HE-MACS) in the rule out of AMI were0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.37), respectively, and for the original MACS were in order 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.20-0.34),. The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS / HE-MACS in the rule out of MACE were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.39) compared to the 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22-0.33) for the original MACS. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that original MACS, troponin-only MACS, and HE-MACS are able to rule out AMI and MACE. However, further studies are needed in developing countries to confirm its external validity.
期刊介绍:
"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine" is an international, Open Access, peer-reviewed, continuously published journal dedicated to improving the quality of care and increasing the knowledge in the field of emergency medicine by publishing high quality articles concerning emergency medicine and related disciplines. All accepted articles will be published immediately in order to increase its visibility and possibility of citation. The journal publishes articles on critical care, disaster and trauma management, environmental diseases, toxicology, pediatric emergency medicine, emergency medical services, emergency nursing, health policy and ethics, and other related topics. The journal supports the following types of articles: -Original/Research article -Systematic review/Meta-analysis -Brief report -Case-report -Letter to the editor -Photo quiz