首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Comparison of the Effectiveness of Stress Echocardiography Versus Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Low-Risk Chest Pain
【2h】

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Stress Echocardiography Versus Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Low-Risk Chest Pain

机译:急诊低危胸痛患者的超声心动图与心肌灌注显像疗效比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The aim of this study was to compare clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes and downstream resource utilization associated with stress echocardiography (SE) and myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain. This was a retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1 to December 31, 2011. Subjects were selected who presented to the emergency department with a primary or secondary diagnosis of chest pain and underwent either SE or MPI. The primary end points were the percentage of patients in each group who underwent downstream cardiac catheterization, revascularization, repeat noninvasive testing, return emergency department visit with chest pain, and hospitalization for myocardial infarction. The mean length of follow-up was 190 days in both groups. Overall, 48,202 patients or 24,101 propensity-matched pairs were included in the final analysis. Compared with SE, MPI was associated with significantly higher odds of subsequent cardiac catheterization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99 to 2.33) and revascularization procedures (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.85) and repeat emergency department visits (AOR 1.14; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.19). The odds of repeat testing and myocardial infarction did not differ between groups. The average cost of downstream care was significantly higher in the MPI group ($2,193.80 vs $1,631.10, p <0.0001). According to the a priori rules specified for this comparative analysis, SE is more effective than MPI for privately insured patients who present to the emergency department with chest pain. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate the importance of assessing diagnostic tests based on how they affect hard end points because identification of disease, in and of itself, may not confer any clinical advantage.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较与临床相关的心血管结局和下游与压力超声心动图(SE)和心肌灌注成像(MPI)相关的低风险胸痛患者的资源利用。这是对2011年1月1日至12月31日期间全国范围内私人参保患者的健康保险理赔数据的回顾性分析。选择的患者经急诊或初次诊断为胸痛后进入急诊科,并接受了SE或MPI。主要终点指标是每组接受下游心脏导管插入术,血运重建,重复无创检测,急诊就诊并伴有胸痛并进行心肌梗塞住院治疗的患者所占的百分比。两组的平均随访时间为190天。总体而言,最终分析包括48,202例患者或24,101例倾向匹配对。与SE相比,MPI与随后的心脏导管插入几率显着更高(调整后的优势比[AOR] 2.15; 95%置信区间[CI] 1.99至2.33)和血运重建程序(AOR 1.58; 95%CI 1.36至1.85)和重复急诊就诊(AOR 1.14; 95%CI 1.11至1.19)。两组之间重复测试和心肌梗死的几率没有差异。 MPI组的下游护理平均费用显着较高($ 2,193.80比$ 1,631.10,p <0.0001)。根据为此比较分析指定的先验规则,对于出现胸痛的急诊科私人保险患者,SE比MPI更有效。总之,这些发现证明了根据诊断测试如何影响硬终点来评估诊断测试的重要性,因为识别疾病本身并不能带来任何临床优势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号