138 Clinicians’ Referrals for Stress Echocardiography: Are we Compliant with Nice Guidelines?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Introduction</h3> Accurate assessment of patients presenting with suspected cardiac pain is of paramount importance as it determines management strategy. Angina itself is a clinical diagnosis and assessing its prognostic significance may require further investigation. NICE provide a framework to aid accurate diagnosis and evaluation (Clinical Guideline 95). Clinicians are encouraged to assess the prognostic significance of underlying coronary disease based on pre-test probability (PTP). Stress Echocardiography (SE) is a non-invasive assessment tool recommended in those patients with a PTP of 30–60%. The primary purpose of this audit was to establish how closely clinicians followed the NICE Clinical Guideline 95 when referring for SE. Furthermore, we wished to evaluate the utility of SE in groups with other PTPs. <h3>Methodology</h3> A retrospective analysis of patients referred for SE at Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust between March and May 2013 was performed. Consecutive referrals from hospital clinicians within the trust were included, both for exercise and dobutamine testing. Exclusion criteria included referrals for indications other than chest pain and those with established coronary artery disease. <h3>Results</h3> 193 patients were evaluated in total. The patients were of a typical demographic profile for suspected coronary disease, with the most common age group being 41–60 (48% of total). 55% were male. 31% were on no anti-anginals prior to referral. 22% (42/193) had typical angina whilst 57% (110/193) described non-anginal pain as judged by the cardiologist supervising the SE. Only 13% (25/193) had a PTP of 30–60%, of which only 16% (4/25) had a positive SE. The most common PTP category was 61–90% (81/193). Of all SE performed, 18% (34/193) were positive. Of these, 56% (19/34) were referred for angiogram and 53% of this cohort (10/19) had angiographically significant lesions requiring intervention. Most interestingly, only 7 of the 110 patients describing non-anginal pain had a positive SE. Of these, 3 were sent for invasive angiography and none required revascularisation. <h3>Conclusions</h3> NICE advocates the use of SE for a specific group of patients based on PTP, but a much broader selection across all risk groups are currently being referred within the trust. SE is being performed on patients with non-anginal pain and this should be evaluated in light of such data showing that of 107 patients, not a single one went forward for revascularisation. This accentuates the paramount importance of accurate history-taking and demonstrates clearly that non-anginal presentations confidently exclude flow-limiting lesions and therefore do not require further testing. We advocate similar studies within other trusts to establish whether findings are replicated. Continuing unconsciously outside of NICE guidance is unsustainable on clinical grounds and additionally, it prohibits adequate workforce planning.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».