《用于评估可疑急性主动脉综合征的诊断工具》

  • 来源专题:心血管疾病防治
  • 编译者: 张燕舞
  • 发布时间:2018-05-22
  • 在评估怀疑患有急性主动脉综合征(AAS)的患者时,误诊和过度怀疑是个问题。该项前瞻性多中心主动脉夹层检测风险评分(ADD-RS)加D二聚体在疑似急性主动脉夹层(ADvISED)研究中使用ADD-RS和D-二聚体的组合作为超过1800名此类患者的诊断工具。 ADD-RS≤1加负向D-二聚体的组合有效地排除了AAS,在约300名患者中仅缺少一个病例,并且将使大约60%的具有低AAS概率的患者免于不必要的结局性血管成像。 虽然这种初步的经验似乎很有希望,但在推荐将这种组合作为诊断工具的常规使用之前,需要在更广泛的患者群体中进行额外的验证。

    BACKGROUND Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are rare and severe cardiovascular emergencies with unspecific symptoms. For AASs, both misdiagnosis and overtesting are key concerns, and standardized diagnostic strategies may help physicians to balance these risks. D-dimer (DD) is highly sensitive for AAS but is inadequate as a stand-alone test. Integration of pretest probability assessment with DD testing is feasible, but the safety and efficiency of such a diagnostic strategy are currently unknown.

    METHODS In a multicenter prospective observational study involving 6 hospitals in 4 countries from 2014 to 2016, consecutive outpatients were eligible if they had≥1 of the following: chest/abdominal/back pain, syncope, perfusion deficit, and if AAS was in the differential diagnosis. The tool for pretest probability assessment was the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS, 0-3) per current guidelines. DD was considered negative (DD-) if<500 ng/mL. Final case adjudication was based on conclusive diagnostic imaging, autopsy, surgery, or 14-day follow-up. Outcomes were the failure rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy for ruling out AAS in patients with ADD-RS=0/DD- or ADD-RS≤1/DD-.

    RESULTS A total of 1850 patients were analyzed. Of these, 438 patients (24%) had ADD-RS=0, 1071 patients (58%) had ADD-RS=1, and 341 patients (18%) had ADD-RS>1. Two hundred forty-one patients (13%) had AAS: 125 had type A aortic dissection, 53 had type B aortic dissection, 35 had intramural aortic hematoma, 18 had aortic rupture, and 10 had penetrating aortic ulcer. A positive DD test result had an overall sensitivity of 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.6-98.6) and a specificity of 64% (95% CI, 61.6-66.4) for the diagnosis of AAS; 8 patients with AAS had DD-. In 294 patients with ADD-RS=0/DD-, 1 case of AAS was observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) and an efficiency of 15.9% (95% CI, 14.3-17.6) for the ADD-RS=0/DD- strategy. In 924 patients with ADD-RS≤1/DD-, 3 cases of AAS were observed. This yielded a failure rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-1) and an efficiency of 49.9% (95% CI, 47.7-52.2) for the ADD-RS≤1/DD- strategy.

    CONCLUSIONS Integration of ADD-RS (either ADD-RS=0 or ADD-RS≤1) with DD may be considered to standardize diagnostic rule out of AAS.

    CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02086136.

  • 原文来源:http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/137/3/250
相关报告
  • 《关于印发急性冠状动脉综合征分级诊疗技术方案的通知》

    • 来源专题:生物安全知识资源中心—领域情报网
    • 编译者:hujm
    • 发布时间:2021-11-22
    • 各省、自治区、直辖市及新疆生产建设兵团卫生健康委、中医药局:   为贯彻落实《国务院办公厅关于推进分级诊疗制度建设的指导意见》(国办发〔2015〕70号)有关要求,进一步推进分级诊疗相关工作,国家卫生健康委会同国家中医药局组织制定了急性冠状动脉综合征分级诊疗技术方案(可从国家卫生健康委网站医政医管栏目、国家中医药局网站通知公告栏目下载)。现印发给你们,请参照执行。   各省级卫生健康行政部门、中医药主管部门要加强分级诊疗制度建设工作的组织领导,有关工作进展情况及时报国家卫生健康委和国家中医药局。   国家卫生健康委联系人:黄子嫣、朱焱磊、张牧嘉   电话:010-68791885、68791887   传真:010-68792195   国家中医药局联系人:段华鹏、王瑾   电话:010-59957760   传真:010-59957684
  • 《筛查急性冠脉综合征后的抑郁症》

    • 来源专题:心血管疾病防治
    • 编译者:张燕舞
    • 发布时间:2018-05-22
    • 急性冠脉综合征后,患者抑郁症风险增加。 在对6项前瞻性观察研究(超过1700名患者)的系统回顾中,急性冠状动脉综合征患者单相性重度抑郁症筛查的诊断准确性(表1)与令人满意,并与一般人群中观察到的相当。建议在急性冠状动脉综合征患者中筛查抑郁症,并在筛查中实施服务以确保随访的诊断和治疗。 Background Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. Study Selection English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. Data Extraction 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. Data Synthesis Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. Limitation Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. Conclusion Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. Primary Funding Source Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).