与普通人群相比,CT 血管造影前后疑似慢性冠状动脉综合征患者与全科医生的接触情况。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad074
Louise Nissen, Jacob Hartmann Søby, Annette de Thurah, Eva Prescott, Anders Prior, Simon Winther, Morten Bøttcher
{"title":"与普通人群相比,CT 血管造影前后疑似慢性冠状动脉综合征患者与全科医生的接触情况。","authors":"Louise Nissen, Jacob Hartmann Søby, Annette de Thurah, Eva Prescott, Anders Prior, Simon Winther, Morten Bøttcher","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) are referred from general practitioners (GPs). The burden of contacts to GP in relation to investigation of suspected CAD is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>All patients undergoing CCTA in Western Denmark from 2014 to 2022 were included. CCTA stenosis was defined as diameter stenosis of ≥50%. Patients with and without stenosis were matched, in each group, 1:5 to a reference population based on birth year, gender, and municipality using data from national registries. All GP visits were registered up to 5 years preceding and 1 year after the CTA and stratified by gender and age. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated in all groups.Of the 62 512 patients included, 12 886 had a stenosis, while 49 626 did not. Patients in both groups had a substantially higher GP visit frequency compared with reference populations. In the year of coronary CTA, the median GP contacts in patients with stenosis were 11 (6-17) vs. 6 (2-11) in the reference population (P < 0.001), and in patients without stenosis, the median GP contacts were 10 (6-17) vs. 5 (2-11) (P < 0.001). These findings were consistent across age and gender. CCI was higher among both patients with and without stenosis compared with reference groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients undergoing CCTA to diagnose CAD, a substantially increased frequency of contacts to GP was observed in the 5-year period prior to examination compared with the reference populations, regardless of the CCTA findings. Obtaining the CCTA result did not seem to substantially affect the GP visit frequency.</p>","PeriodicalId":11869,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"623-631"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contact with general practice in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome before and after CT angiography compared with the general population.\",\"authors\":\"Louise Nissen, Jacob Hartmann Søby, Annette de Thurah, Eva Prescott, Anders Prior, Simon Winther, Morten Bøttcher\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) are referred from general practitioners (GPs). The burden of contacts to GP in relation to investigation of suspected CAD is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>All patients undergoing CCTA in Western Denmark from 2014 to 2022 were included. CCTA stenosis was defined as diameter stenosis of ≥50%. Patients with and without stenosis were matched, in each group, 1:5 to a reference population based on birth year, gender, and municipality using data from national registries. All GP visits were registered up to 5 years preceding and 1 year after the CTA and stratified by gender and age. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated in all groups.Of the 62 512 patients included, 12 886 had a stenosis, while 49 626 did not. Patients in both groups had a substantially higher GP visit frequency compared with reference populations. In the year of coronary CTA, the median GP contacts in patients with stenosis were 11 (6-17) vs. 6 (2-11) in the reference population (P < 0.001), and in patients without stenosis, the median GP contacts were 10 (6-17) vs. 5 (2-11) (P < 0.001). These findings were consistent across age and gender. CCI was higher among both patients with and without stenosis compared with reference groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients undergoing CCTA to diagnose CAD, a substantially increased frequency of contacts to GP was observed in the 5-year period prior to examination compared with the reference populations, regardless of the CCTA findings. Obtaining the CCTA result did not seem to substantially affect the GP visit frequency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"623-631\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad074\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad074","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数接受冠状动脉计算机断层扫描(CCTA)以诊断冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的患者都是由全科医生(GP)转诊的。与全科医生联系调查疑似冠状动脉疾病的负担尚不清楚:方法:纳入2014-2022年期间在丹麦西部接受CCTA检查的所有患者。CCTA狭窄定义为直径狭窄≥50%。根据出生年份、性别和市镇,使用国家登记处的数据将每组有狭窄和无狭窄的患者与参考人群进行1:5配对。所有全科医生的就诊记录都在 CTA 之前的五年内和之后的一年内进行了登记,并按性别和年龄进行了分层。所有组别均计算了夏尔森合并症指数(CCI):在纳入的 62 512 名患者中,12 886 人有血管狭窄,49 626 人没有血管狭窄。与参考人群相比,两组患者的全科医生就诊频率都要高得多。在接受冠状动脉造影术的一年中,血管狭窄患者的全科医生接触次数中位数为 11 [6-17] 次,而参照人群为 6 [2-11] 次(P 结论:全科医生接触次数中位数的变化可能与冠状动脉造影术有关:在接受 CCTA 诊断 CAD 的患者中,与参考人群相比,无论 CCTA 结果如何,在检查前的五年内接触全科医生的频率都大幅增加。获得 CCTA 结果似乎并不会对看全科医生的频率产生重大影响。
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
Contact with general practice in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome before and after CT angiography compared with the general population.

Background: Most patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) are referred from general practitioners (GPs). The burden of contacts to GP in relation to investigation of suspected CAD is unknown.

Methods and results: All patients undergoing CCTA in Western Denmark from 2014 to 2022 were included. CCTA stenosis was defined as diameter stenosis of ≥50%. Patients with and without stenosis were matched, in each group, 1:5 to a reference population based on birth year, gender, and municipality using data from national registries. All GP visits were registered up to 5 years preceding and 1 year after the CTA and stratified by gender and age. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated in all groups.Of the 62 512 patients included, 12 886 had a stenosis, while 49 626 did not. Patients in both groups had a substantially higher GP visit frequency compared with reference populations. In the year of coronary CTA, the median GP contacts in patients with stenosis were 11 (6-17) vs. 6 (2-11) in the reference population (P < 0.001), and in patients without stenosis, the median GP contacts were 10 (6-17) vs. 5 (2-11) (P < 0.001). These findings were consistent across age and gender. CCI was higher among both patients with and without stenosis compared with reference groups.

Conclusion: In patients undergoing CCTA to diagnose CAD, a substantially increased frequency of contacts to GP was observed in the 5-year period prior to examination compared with the reference populations, regardless of the CCTA findings. Obtaining the CCTA result did not seem to substantially affect the GP visit frequency.

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
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes is an English language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing cardiovascular outcomes research. It serves as an official journal of the European Society of Cardiology and maintains a close alliance with the European Heart Health Institute. The journal disseminates original research and topical reviews contributed by health scientists globally, with a focus on the quality of care and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes at the hospital, national, and international levels. It provides a platform for presenting the most outstanding cardiovascular outcomes research to influence cardiovascular public health policy on a global scale. Additionally, the journal aims to motivate young investigators and foster the growth of the outcomes research community.
期刊最新文献
Should we routinely measure patient quality of life after acute coronary syndrome? National health expenditure per capita is associated with CRT implantation practice: findings from the ESC CRT Survey II with 11 088 patients. Impact of intravascular ultrasound for coronary bifurcations treated with last generations stents: insights from the BIFURCAT-ULTRA registry. Treatment with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies is associated with discontinuation of oral lipid lowering therapy. Quality indicators for improved cardiovascular care: learnings from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
×
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