MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

128 MORE DISCHARGES, LESS FOLLOW-UP AND SIMILAR RATES OF CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY: INITIAL ‘REAL-WORLD’ EXPERIENCE OF NICE GUIDANCE ON ASSESSMENT OF CHEST PAIN OF RECENT ONSET IN THE RAPID ACCESS CHEST PAIN CLINIC

2013· article· en· W2324831157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. W. Sheppard, Jens Edmund, K Frawley, Gopal Dubey, Jan Baron, S Burn, Tariq Azeem, Manoj Bhandari, Kamal Chitkara, Andrea Tukan, Alastair J. McCance, Damian J. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiceChest painGuidelineCoronary artery diseaseAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCohortProtocol (science)Coronary angiographyEmergency medicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In March 2010 NICE clinical guideline number 95 described a new protocol-driven pathway for the investigation of chest pain of recent onset. This emphasised the importance of establishing pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and encouraged the use of non-invasive coronary and myocardial perfusion imaging. We sought to determine the impact of these changes on resource utilisation in particular coronary angiography and need for out-patient review. Methods Clinical disposition for patients attending the nurse-led Rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC) at Royal Derby hospital between January and August 2011 was analysed using a dedicated database. During this period an established exercise tolerance test-driven protocol was in place. The proposed NICE RACPC protocol was applied retrospectively to this cohort to produce a projected model of outcomes. The new RACPC protocol was implemented in July 2012 and disposition was recorded prospectively for 9real-world9 patients attending between July and November 2012. Proportions were compared with Pearson9s χ2 test and p value of <0.05 was taken to be significant. Results Results are summarised in figure 1. A total of 916 patients were analysed: 360 patients attended RACPC between July and November 2012 and 556 during 2011. Of these 517 (56.4%) were male. 364 (39.7%) were deemed inappropriate referrals by NICE criteria and were discharged to the GP. Typical angina was diagnosed in 191 (20.8%) and non-angina symptoms in 333 (36.4%). 562 (61.4%) underwent a treadmill exercise tolerance test, of which 136 (14.9%) were reported as positive for ischaemia. Implementation of the new protocol-driven RACPC pathway during 2012 resulted in a significant reduction in cardiology clinic follow-up compared with 2011 (2% vs 23%, p<0.0001). Rates of discharge to the GP upon initial consultation were higher (67.5% vs 60%, p=0.02) with fewer direct admissions from RACPC (3% vs 6%, p=0.008), whereas the rate of coronary angiography (10.3% vs 8%, p=0.57) was similar. The rate of myocardial perfusion scanning remained similar (9.2% vs 6%, p=0.13) while uptake of CT coronary angiography currently was lower than predicted by NICE at 2.5%. Observed rates of angiography and MPS during 2012 were similar to those predicted by the NICE retrospective model. Conclusions In this ‘real-world9 study, implementation of the 2010 NICE guidance on the initial evaluation of chest pain of recent onset with a protocol-driven RACPC pathway resulted in a greater proportion of initial discharge to primary care with less frequent outpatient review and similar rates of referral for coronary angiography. Utilisation of non-invasive coronary imaging in the initial assessment of chest pain is likely to expand and longitudinal outcome studies are required to confirm the safety of revised RACPC protocols.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207