低危胸痛患者急诊严重程度指数加心肌肌钙蛋白I快速检测与急诊严重程度指数的比较:一项随机临床试验

Mahshid Shariati, A. Mirhaghi, Hossein Tavalaei, J. Malekzadeh
{"title":"低危胸痛患者急诊严重程度指数加心肌肌钙蛋白I快速检测与急诊严重程度指数的比较:一项随机临床试验","authors":"Mahshid Shariati, A. Mirhaghi, Hossein Tavalaei, J. Malekzadeh","doi":"10.5812/modernc.117210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is difficulty in identifying low-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED). Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare mistriage between the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) plus the cardiac troponin I rapid test (cTnI) and ESI among patients with chest pain. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from January to April 2019. One hundred patients with low-risk chest pain were randomly allocated to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Triage levels, used resources, and mistriage rate were compared between both groups among patients discharged from the ED and admitted to the cardiac unit (CU) or coronary care unit (CCU). Results: Our samples included 100 patients (age: 52.9 ± 13.92 years; 51% female) who were equally assigned to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Overtriage rate was 6% and 88% for the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups, respectively. The triage level between the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups was significantly different among patients who were discharged from the ED (3.92 vs. 3.00). Conclusions: The ESI + cTnI score seems to be more valid than the ESI scale to triage patients with low-risk chest pain. It is recommended to add cTnI to the ESI for the triage of patients with low-risk chest pain in the ED.","PeriodicalId":18693,"journal":{"name":"Modern Care Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Emergency Severity Index Plus Cardiac Troponin I Rapid Test and Emergency Severity Index in Patients Presenting with Low-Risk Chest Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial\",\"authors\":\"Mahshid Shariati, A. Mirhaghi, Hossein Tavalaei, J. Malekzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.5812/modernc.117210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: There is difficulty in identifying low-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED). Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare mistriage between the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) plus the cardiac troponin I rapid test (cTnI) and ESI among patients with chest pain. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from January to April 2019. One hundred patients with low-risk chest pain were randomly allocated to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Triage levels, used resources, and mistriage rate were compared between both groups among patients discharged from the ED and admitted to the cardiac unit (CU) or coronary care unit (CCU). Results: Our samples included 100 patients (age: 52.9 ± 13.92 years; 51% female) who were equally assigned to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Overtriage rate was 6% and 88% for the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups, respectively. The triage level between the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups was significantly different among patients who were discharged from the ED (3.92 vs. 3.00). Conclusions: The ESI + cTnI score seems to be more valid than the ESI scale to triage patients with low-risk chest pain. It is recommended to add cTnI to the ESI for the triage of patients with low-risk chest pain in the ED.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Care Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Care Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5812/modernc.117210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Care Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/modernc.117210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在急诊科(ED)鉴别低危急性冠状动脉综合征患者很困难。目的:本研究的目的是比较急诊严重程度指数(ESI)加心肌肌钙蛋白I快速检测(cTnI)和ESI对胸痛患者的影响。方法:2019年1 - 4月进行随机临床试验。100例低危胸痛患者随机分为ESI + cTnI组和ESI组。比较两组从急诊科出院并入住心脏科(CU)或冠心病监护室(CCU)的患者的分诊水平、使用的资源和失败率。结果:纳入100例患者(年龄:52.9±13.92岁;51%的女性),她们被平均分配到ESI + cTnI和ESI组。ESI + cTnI组和ESI组的过度分诊率分别为6%和88%。ESI + cTnI组和ESI组的分诊水平在急诊科出院患者中有显著差异(3.92 vs. 3.00)。结论:ESI + cTnI评分似乎比ESI量表对低危胸痛患者的分类更有效。建议将cTnI加入ESI,用于急诊科低危胸痛患者的分诊。
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
Comparison Between Emergency Severity Index Plus Cardiac Troponin I Rapid Test and Emergency Severity Index in Patients Presenting with Low-Risk Chest Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Background: There is difficulty in identifying low-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department (ED). Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare mistriage between the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) plus the cardiac troponin I rapid test (cTnI) and ESI among patients with chest pain. Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from January to April 2019. One hundred patients with low-risk chest pain were randomly allocated to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Triage levels, used resources, and mistriage rate were compared between both groups among patients discharged from the ED and admitted to the cardiac unit (CU) or coronary care unit (CCU). Results: Our samples included 100 patients (age: 52.9 ± 13.92 years; 51% female) who were equally assigned to the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups. Overtriage rate was 6% and 88% for the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups, respectively. The triage level between the ESI + cTnI and ESI groups was significantly different among patients who were discharged from the ED (3.92 vs. 3.00). Conclusions: The ESI + cTnI score seems to be more valid than the ESI scale to triage patients with low-risk chest pain. It is recommended to add cTnI to the ESI for the triage of patients with low-risk chest pain in the ED.
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
Interfering Effect of Alcohol Swabbing on Capillary Blood Glucose Concentration Using a Glucometer Consumption of Apitherapy Products by Late Adolescents Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional and Comparative Descriptive Study The Experiences of Family Caregivers After Losing a Patient with Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study Quality of Life in Children with Cerebral Palsy: The Role of Having Access to Rehabilitation Services Relationship Between Hyperuricemia and Hypertension in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis
×
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