ArticleOman medical journal2012
Predictive value of a 4-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol in patients with suspected ischemic chest pain presenting to an emergency department.
Article in Oman medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Value of early rest myocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT in patients with chest pain and non-diagnostic ECG in emergency department.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCurrently recommended risk stratification protocols for suspected ischemic chest pain in the emergency department (ED) includes point-of-care availability of exercise treadmill/nuclear tests or CT coronary angiograms. These tests are not widely available for most of the ED's. This study aims to prospectively validate the safety of a predefined 4-hour accelerated diagnostic protocol (ADP) using chest pain, ECG, and troponin T among suspected ischemic chest pain patients presenting to an ED of a tertiary care hospital in Oman.
methodsOne hundred and thirty-two patients aged over 18 years with suspected ischemic chest pain presenting within 12 hours of onset along with normal or non-diagnostic first ECG and negative first troponin T (<0.010 μg/l) were recruited from September 2008 to February 2009. Low-probability acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at 4-hours defined as absent chest pain and negative ECG or troponin tests were discharged home and observed for 30-days for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (Group I: negative ADP). High-probability ACS patients at 4-hours were defined by recurrent or persistent chest pain, positive ECG or troponin tests and were admitted and observed for in-hospital MACE (Group II: positive ADP).
resultsOne hundred and thirty-two patients were recruited and 110 patients completed the study. The overall 30-day MACE in this cohort was 15% with a mortality of less than 1%. 30-days MACE occurred in 8/95 of group I patients (8.4%) and 9/15 of the in-hospital MACE patients in group II. The ADP had a sensitivity of 52% (95% CI: 0.28-0.76), specificity of 93% (0.85-0.97), a negative predictive value of 91% (0.83-0.96), a positive predictive value of 60% (0.32-0.82), negative likelihood ratio of 0.5 (0.30-0.83) and a positive likelihood ratio of 8.2 (3.3-20) in predicting MACE.
conclusionA 4-hour ADP using chest pain, ECG, and troponin T had high specificity and negative predictive value in predicting 30-day MACE among low probability ACS patients discharged from ED. However, 30-day MACE in ADP negative patients was relatively high in contrast to guideline recommendations. Hence, there is a need to establish ED chest pain unit and adopt new protocols especially adding a point-of-care exercise treadmill test in the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.