...
首页> 外文期刊>PACE: Pacing and clinical electrophysiology >Clinical judgment versus decision analysis for managing device advisories.
【24h】

Clinical judgment versus decision analysis for managing device advisories.

机译:临床判断与决策分析,以管理设备咨询。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

INTRODUCTION: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) advisories may have a significant impact on patient management. Surveys of clinical practice have shown a great deal of variability in patient management after a device advisory. We compared our management of consecutive patients in a single large university practice with device advisories to the "best" patient management strategy predicted by a decision analysis model. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who had implanted devices affected by an advisory at our medical center between March 2005 and May 2006 and compared our actual patient management strategy with that subsequently predicted by a decision analysis model. RESULTS: Over 14 months, 11 advisories from three different manufacturers affected 436 patients. Twelve patients (2.8%) were deceased and 39 patients (8.9%) were followed at outside facilities. Management of the 385 remaining patients varied based on type of malfunction or potential malfunction, manufacturer recommendations, device dependency, and patient or physician preferences. Management consisted of the following: 57 device replacements (15.2%), 44 devices reprogrammed or magnets issued (11.7%), and 268 patients underwent more frequent follow-up (71.3%). No major complications, related to device malfunction or device replacement, occurred among any patient affected with a device advisory. Concordance between the decision analysis model and our management strategy occurred in 57.1% of cases and 25 devices were replaced when it was not the preferred treatment strategy predicted by the decision model (43.9%, 37.3% when excluding devices replaced based on patient preference). The decision analysis favored replacement for all patients with PM dependency, but only for four patients with ICDs for secondary prevention. No devices were left implanted that the decision analysis model predicted should have been replaced. CONCLUSIONS: We found that despite a fairly conservative device replacement strategy for advisories, we still replaced more devices when it was not the preferred device management strategy predicted by a decision analysis model. This study demonstrates that even when risks and benefits are being considered by experienced clinicians, a formal decision analysis can help to develop a systematic evidence based approach and potentially avoid unnecessary procedures.
机译:简介:植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)和起搏器(PM)咨询可能会对患者管理产生重大影响。临床实践的调查显示,在设备咨询后,患者管理中存在很大的可变性。我们将在一家大型大学实践中对连续患者的管理与设备咨询相比较,将其与决策分析模型预测的“最佳”患者管理策略进行了比较。方法:我们对2005年3月至2006年5月在我们医疗中心接受咨询的所有植入器械的患者进行了回顾性研究,并将我们的实际患者管理策略与随后通过决策分析模型预测的策略进行了比较。结果:在14个月的时间里,来自三个不同制造商的11个建议影响了436例患者。 12名患者(2.8%)死了,在室外设施中随访了39名患者(8.9%)。其余385名患者的管理因故障类型或潜在故障,制造商建议,设备依赖性以及患者或医生的喜好而异。管理包括以下内容:57台设备更换(15.2%),44台设备重新编程或发出磁铁(11.7%),以及268例患者接受了更频繁的随访(71.3%)。受设备咨询影响的任何患者均未发生与设备故障或设备更换相关的重大并发症。决策分析模型与我们的管理策略之间的一致性发生在57.1%的病例中,当不是决策模型所预测的首选治疗策略时,更换了25台设备(43.9%,当根据患者喜好排除更换的设备时为37.3%)。决策分析支持对所有PM依赖患者进行替代,但仅对四位ICD患者进行二级预防。没有留下任何设备应该植入预测的决策分析模型。结论:我们发现,尽管针对咨询的设备更换策略相当保守,但当决策分析模型预测的设备管理策略不是首选设备时,我们仍然更换了更多设备。这项研究表明,即使经验丰富的临床医生正在考虑风险和收益,正式的决策分析也可以帮助开发基于系统证据的方法,并有可能避免不必要的程序。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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