CT冠状动脉造影后的下游调查:对英国中心实践的审计

A. Amlani, G. Benedetti, S. Mak, R. Preston
{"title":"CT冠状动脉造影后的下游调查:对英国中心实践的审计","authors":"A. Amlani, G. Benedetti, S. Mak, R. Preston","doi":"10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BSCI.27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In the UK, national guidance on the assessment of cardiac sounding chest pain (NICE CG95 2016), advises that CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is the first line imaging modality. If this reveals coronary artery disease of uncertain functional significance or is non-diagnostic, non-invasive functional testing is advised as second line. Invasive coronary angiography is only advocated as third-line when functional imaging is inconclusive or if intervention is planned and should not be performed merely to ‘check’ CTCA. We present an audit to assess the adherence to this national guidance in our centre. Methods Retrospective analysis of 281 consecutive CTCA performed between July 2017 to June 2018 and October 2018 to January 2019. Data collected include demographics, CAD-RADS score, and the presence/absence of any subsequent functional imaging, invasive angiography, PCI, or CABG up until the data collection time-point (September 2019). Results 276 scans were suitable for analysis and, out of these, 231 (84%) were discharged without further investigation. A total of 24 patients underwent subsequent functional imaging and 25 underwent invasive coronary angiography; in 16 of these patients (64%) no revascularisation was performed. Conclusion Overall adherence to the guidelines at our institution is good with the majority of patients (84%) discharged without further investigation. Importantly, in 64% of patients undergoing invasive angiography no intervention was performed, suggesting that some of these may be unnecessary.","PeriodicalId":383700,"journal":{"name":"Scientific poster abstracts","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"P14 Downstream investigation following CT coronary angiography: an audit of practice in a UK centre\",\"authors\":\"A. Amlani, G. Benedetti, S. Mak, R. Preston\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BSCI.27\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction In the UK, national guidance on the assessment of cardiac sounding chest pain (NICE CG95 2016), advises that CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is the first line imaging modality. If this reveals coronary artery disease of uncertain functional significance or is non-diagnostic, non-invasive functional testing is advised as second line. Invasive coronary angiography is only advocated as third-line when functional imaging is inconclusive or if intervention is planned and should not be performed merely to ‘check’ CTCA. We present an audit to assess the adherence to this national guidance in our centre. Methods Retrospective analysis of 281 consecutive CTCA performed between July 2017 to June 2018 and October 2018 to January 2019. Data collected include demographics, CAD-RADS score, and the presence/absence of any subsequent functional imaging, invasive angiography, PCI, or CABG up until the data collection time-point (September 2019). Results 276 scans were suitable for analysis and, out of these, 231 (84%) were discharged without further investigation. A total of 24 patients underwent subsequent functional imaging and 25 underwent invasive coronary angiography; in 16 of these patients (64%) no revascularisation was performed. Conclusion Overall adherence to the guidelines at our institution is good with the majority of patients (84%) discharged without further investigation. Importantly, in 64% of patients undergoing invasive angiography no intervention was performed, suggesting that some of these may be unnecessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":383700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific poster abstracts\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific poster abstracts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BSCI.27\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific poster abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BSCI.27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在英国,关于心源性胸痛评估的国家指南(NICE CG95 2016)建议,CT冠状动脉造影(CTCA)是一线成像方式。如果这显示出功能意义不确定的冠状动脉疾病,或者是非诊断性的,建议非侵入性功能检查作为二线。侵入性冠状动脉造影仅在功能成像不确定或计划干预时才被提倡作为第三线,而不应仅仅“检查”CTCA。我们提出了一项审核,以评估本中心对本国家指导方针的遵守情况。方法回顾性分析2017年7月至2018年6月、2018年10月至2019年1月连续行CTCA的281例患者。收集的数据包括人口统计数据、CAD-RADS评分,以及在数据收集时间点(2019年9月)之前是否存在任何后续功能成像、侵入性血管造影、PCI或CABG。结果276例扫描适合分析,其中231例(84%)出院,未作进一步调查。共有24例患者接受了随后的功能成像,25例接受了有创冠状动脉造影;其中16例(64%)未行血运重建术。结论我院对指南的总体遵守情况良好,大多数患者(84%)出院时未作进一步检查。重要的是,在接受有创血管造影的患者中,64%的患者没有进行干预,这表明其中一些干预可能是不必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
P14 Downstream investigation following CT coronary angiography: an audit of practice in a UK centre
Introduction In the UK, national guidance on the assessment of cardiac sounding chest pain (NICE CG95 2016), advises that CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is the first line imaging modality. If this reveals coronary artery disease of uncertain functional significance or is non-diagnostic, non-invasive functional testing is advised as second line. Invasive coronary angiography is only advocated as third-line when functional imaging is inconclusive or if intervention is planned and should not be performed merely to ‘check’ CTCA. We present an audit to assess the adherence to this national guidance in our centre. Methods Retrospective analysis of 281 consecutive CTCA performed between July 2017 to June 2018 and October 2018 to January 2019. Data collected include demographics, CAD-RADS score, and the presence/absence of any subsequent functional imaging, invasive angiography, PCI, or CABG up until the data collection time-point (September 2019). Results 276 scans were suitable for analysis and, out of these, 231 (84%) were discharged without further investigation. A total of 24 patients underwent subsequent functional imaging and 25 underwent invasive coronary angiography; in 16 of these patients (64%) no revascularisation was performed. Conclusion Overall adherence to the guidelines at our institution is good with the majority of patients (84%) discharged without further investigation. Importantly, in 64% of patients undergoing invasive angiography no intervention was performed, suggesting that some of these may be unnecessary.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
P08 Automated calculation of the RV:LV ratio in acute pulmonary embolism: a real-world feasibility and clinical impact study P11 Coronary artery disease prevalence by computed tomography coronary angiography in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia P12 Exploring the value of computed tomography coronary angiography in guiding management of asymptomatic patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia P15 Assessment of blood flow patterns in patients with type B aortic dissection by 4-dimensional flow phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging – a pilot study P16 Rubidium myocardial perfusion PET-CT: initial experience in first 100 patients
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1