急性冠状动脉综合征患者死亡风险预测模型的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Minerva cardiology and angiology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-04 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06415-3
Jifang Cheng, Yike Wang, Jiantong Sheng, Wang Ya, Zhu Xia
{"title":"急性冠状动脉综合征患者死亡风险预测模型的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jifang Cheng, Yike Wang, Jiantong Sheng, Wang Ya, Zhu Xia","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06415-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study systematically evaluates the accuracy of several death risk prediction models for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) through evidence-based methods. We identify the most accurate and effective ACS death risk prediction model and provide an evidence-based basis for clinical healthcare personnel to evaluate their choice of death risk prediction model for ACS patients.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>An evidence-based approach was used to study the current death risk prediction model for ACS. First, a literature search was carried out using computer-based and manual searching. The literature databases searched include Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, WanFang Data, CNKI, VPCS, and SinoMed. The search period was limited to 2009 to 2022. Screening, quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out for the included articles. The PROBAST was used to conduct a migration risk assessment. RevMan 5.3 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 were used in combination to determine the model effect sizes. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the data that could not be meta-analyzed.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 8277 articles were initially included in this study. After screening, 25 articles were finally included, involving 11 different risk prediction models. A total of 306,390 patients with ACS were included of which 158,080 (51.6%) were male and 147,793 (48.4%) were female. The patients stemmed from 11 different countries (e.g., China, the USA, Spain, the UK, etc.). The total number of deaths was 23,601. The sensitivity of the GRACE risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.76 and an AUC value of 0.86. The sensitivity of the CAMI risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.70 and an AUC value of 0.85. The sensitivity of the TIMI risk prediction model was 0.51, with a specificity of 0.81, and an AUC value of 0.64. The sensitivity of the REMS risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.46 and an AUC value of 0.41. Eight different risk prediction models (EPICOR, CRUSADE, SAMI, GWTG, LNS, SYNTAX II, APACHE II) that could not be combined with the effect size were also included, with sensitivities ranging from 0.77-0.95, specificities ranging from 0.22-0.99, and AUC values ranging from 0.71-0.92.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GRACE and CAMI risk prediction models demonstrate good accuracy for evaluating the death risk of ACS patients. The accuracy of the TIMI risk prediction model is similar to that of the REMS risk prediction model. The APACHE II, SYNTAX II, EPICOR, and CAMI risk prediction models also show good accuracy for estimating the risk of death in ACS patients, although further validation is needed due to limited evidence. For improved predictive accuracy and to help advance medical interventions, the author recommends that clinical medical staff use the GRACE model to predict the death risk of ACS patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":18668,"journal":{"name":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of death risk prediction models for acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jifang Cheng, Yike Wang, Jiantong Sheng, Wang Ya, Zhu Xia\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06415-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study systematically evaluates the accuracy of several death risk prediction models for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) through evidence-based methods. We identify the most accurate and effective ACS death risk prediction model and provide an evidence-based basis for clinical healthcare personnel to evaluate their choice of death risk prediction model for ACS patients.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>An evidence-based approach was used to study the current death risk prediction model for ACS. First, a literature search was carried out using computer-based and manual searching. The literature databases searched include Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, WanFang Data, CNKI, VPCS, and SinoMed. The search period was limited to 2009 to 2022. Screening, quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out for the included articles. The PROBAST was used to conduct a migration risk assessment. RevMan 5.3 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 were used in combination to determine the model effect sizes. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the data that could not be meta-analyzed.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 8277 articles were initially included in this study. After screening, 25 articles were finally included, involving 11 different risk prediction models. A total of 306,390 patients with ACS were included of which 158,080 (51.6%) were male and 147,793 (48.4%) were female. The patients stemmed from 11 different countries (e.g., China, the USA, Spain, the UK, etc.). The total number of deaths was 23,601. The sensitivity of the GRACE risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.76 and an AUC value of 0.86. The sensitivity of the CAMI risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.70 and an AUC value of 0.85. The sensitivity of the TIMI risk prediction model was 0.51, with a specificity of 0.81, and an AUC value of 0.64. The sensitivity of the REMS risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.46 and an AUC value of 0.41. Eight different risk prediction models (EPICOR, CRUSADE, SAMI, GWTG, LNS, SYNTAX II, APACHE II) that could not be combined with the effect size were also included, with sensitivities ranging from 0.77-0.95, specificities ranging from 0.22-0.99, and AUC values ranging from 0.71-0.92.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GRACE and CAMI risk prediction models demonstrate good accuracy for evaluating the death risk of ACS patients. The accuracy of the TIMI risk prediction model is similar to that of the REMS risk prediction model. The APACHE II, SYNTAX II, EPICOR, and CAMI risk prediction models also show good accuracy for estimating the risk of death in ACS patients, although further validation is needed due to limited evidence. For improved predictive accuracy and to help advance medical interventions, the author recommends that clinical medical staff use the GRACE model to predict the death risk of ACS patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva cardiology and angiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva cardiology and angiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06415-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva cardiology and angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06415-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究通过循证方法系统评估了几种急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者死亡风险预测模型的准确性。我们确定了最准确、最有效的急性冠脉综合征死亡风险预测模型,并为临床医护人员评估其对急性冠脉综合征患者死亡风险预测模型的选择提供了循证依据:采用循证方法研究当前的 ACS 死亡风险预测模型。首先,利用计算机检索和人工检索进行文献检索。检索的文献数据库包括 Cochrane Library、MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science、万方数据、CNKI、VPCS 和 SinoMed。检索期限于 2009 年至 2022 年。对纳入的文章进行了筛选、质量评估和数据提取。使用PROBAST进行迁移风险评估。RevMan 5.3 和 Meta-DiSc 1.4 用于确定模型效应大小。对无法进行荟萃分析的数据进行了描述性分析:本研究最初共纳入了 8277 篇文章。经过筛选,最终纳入 25 篇文章,涉及 11 种不同的风险预测模型。共纳入 306390 名 ACS 患者,其中男性 158080 人(51.6%),女性 147793 人(48.4%)。患者来自 11 个不同的国家(如中国、美国、西班牙、英国等)。死亡总人数为 23,601 人。GRACE 风险预测模型的灵敏度为 0.78,特异度为 0.76,AUC 值为 0.86。CAMI 风险预测模型的灵敏度为 0.78,特异性为 0.70,AUC 值为 0.85。TIMI 风险预测模型的灵敏度为 0.51,特异性为 0.81,AUC 值为 0.64。REMS 风险预测模型的灵敏度为 0.78,特异性为 0.46,AUC 值为 0.41。此外,还纳入了 8 种不同的风险预测模型(EPICOR、CRUSADE、SAMI、GWTG、LNS、SYNTAX II、APACHE II),这些模型无法与效应大小相结合,其灵敏度在 0.77-0.95 之间,特异性在 0.22-0.99 之间,AUC 值在 0.71-0.92 之间:GRACE和CAMI风险预测模型在评估ACS患者死亡风险方面表现出良好的准确性。TIMI 风险预测模型的准确性与 REMS 风险预测模型相似。APACHE II、SYNTAX II、EPICOR 和 CAMI 风险预测模型在估计 ACS 患者死亡风险方面也显示出良好的准确性,但由于证据有限,还需要进一步验证。为了提高预测准确性并帮助推进医疗干预,作者建议临床医务人员使用 GRACE 模型来预测 ACS 患者的死亡风险。
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
Accuracy of death risk prediction models for acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: This study systematically evaluates the accuracy of several death risk prediction models for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) through evidence-based methods. We identify the most accurate and effective ACS death risk prediction model and provide an evidence-based basis for clinical healthcare personnel to evaluate their choice of death risk prediction model for ACS patients.

Evidence acquisition: An evidence-based approach was used to study the current death risk prediction model for ACS. First, a literature search was carried out using computer-based and manual searching. The literature databases searched include Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, WanFang Data, CNKI, VPCS, and SinoMed. The search period was limited to 2009 to 2022. Screening, quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out for the included articles. The PROBAST was used to conduct a migration risk assessment. RevMan 5.3 and Meta-DiSc 1.4 were used in combination to determine the model effect sizes. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the data that could not be meta-analyzed.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 8277 articles were initially included in this study. After screening, 25 articles were finally included, involving 11 different risk prediction models. A total of 306,390 patients with ACS were included of which 158,080 (51.6%) were male and 147,793 (48.4%) were female. The patients stemmed from 11 different countries (e.g., China, the USA, Spain, the UK, etc.). The total number of deaths was 23,601. The sensitivity of the GRACE risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.76 and an AUC value of 0.86. The sensitivity of the CAMI risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.70 and an AUC value of 0.85. The sensitivity of the TIMI risk prediction model was 0.51, with a specificity of 0.81, and an AUC value of 0.64. The sensitivity of the REMS risk prediction model was 0.78, with a specificity of 0.46 and an AUC value of 0.41. Eight different risk prediction models (EPICOR, CRUSADE, SAMI, GWTG, LNS, SYNTAX II, APACHE II) that could not be combined with the effect size were also included, with sensitivities ranging from 0.77-0.95, specificities ranging from 0.22-0.99, and AUC values ranging from 0.71-0.92.

Conclusions: The GRACE and CAMI risk prediction models demonstrate good accuracy for evaluating the death risk of ACS patients. The accuracy of the TIMI risk prediction model is similar to that of the REMS risk prediction model. The APACHE II, SYNTAX II, EPICOR, and CAMI risk prediction models also show good accuracy for estimating the risk of death in ACS patients, although further validation is needed due to limited evidence. For improved predictive accuracy and to help advance medical interventions, the author recommends that clinical medical staff use the GRACE model to predict the death risk of ACS patients.

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
Minerva cardiology and angiology
Minerva cardiology and angiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
118
期刊最新文献
Acurate neo2 is associated with a reduced inflammatory response in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Association between instantaneous heart rate sequence during the awake period and cardiovascular events: a study based on Sleep Heart Health Study. Cardiology 2.0: the (r)age of the machines? Clinical implications of Sokolow-Lyon voltage less than 3.5 mV in patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Do publications of machine learning models justify the enthusiasm they generate?
×
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