CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Acute Coronary Syndrom

科研文章

荐读文献

Intensive Care Utilization in Stable Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Rapid Reperfusion Percutaneous Support Devices for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Cardiac Troponin Composition Characterization after Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Relation with Culprit Artery, Ischemic Time Window, and Severity of Injury Utility and Challenges of an Early Invasive Strategy in Patients Resuscitated From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Cardiovascular Mortality After Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Interval From Initiation of Prasugrel to Coronary Angiography in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials JACC Scientific Expert Panel In-Hospital Coronary Revascularization Rates and Post-Discharge Mortality Risk in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Eruptive Calcified Nodules as a Potential Mechanism of Acute Coronary Thrombosis and Sudden Death
|<<... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >>|

Clinical Trial2018 Feb 1;178(2):239-247.

JOURNAL：JAMA Intern Med. Article Link

Comparison of Physician Visual Assessment With Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Assessment of Stenosis Severity in China

Zhang H, Mu L, China PEACE Collaborative Group et al. Keywords: Physician Visual Assessment; Quantitative Coronary Angiography; stenosis

ABSTRACT


IMPORTANCE - Although physician visual assessment (PVA) of stenosis severity is a standard clinical practice to support decisions for coronary revascularization, there are concerns about its accuracy.


OBJECTIVE - To compare PVA with quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) as a means of assessing stenosis severity among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in China.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS - A cross-sectional study (2012-2013) of a random subset of 1295 patients from the China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE) Prospective PCI Study was carried out. The PEACE Prospective PCI study recruited a consecutive sample of patients undergoing PCI at 35 hospitals in 18 provinces of China. The coronary angiograms of this subset of participants were reviewed using QCA by 2 independent core laboratories blinded to PVA readings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES - Differences between PVA and QCA assessments of stenosis severity for lesions for which PCI was performed and variation of these differences among hospitals and physicians, stratified by the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

RESULTS - In patients without AMI, the mean (SD) age was 62 (10) years, and 217 (31.5%) were women; in patients with AMI, the mean (SD) age was 60 (11) years, and 153 (25.2%) were women. The mean (SD) percent diameter stenosis by PVA was 16.0% (11.5%) greater than that by QCA in patients without AMI and 10.2% (12.3%) in those with AMI (P < .001 for both comparisons). In patients without AMI, of 837 lesions with 70% or more stenosis by PVA, 427 (50.6%) were less than 70% by QCA; in patients with AMI, similar patterns were observed to a lesser extent. Among patients without AMI, only 4 (0.47%) lesions were additionally assessed with fractional flow reserve. Among 30 hospitals, the difference between PVA and QCA readings of stenosis severity varied from 7.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%) to 21.3% (95% CI, 17.1%-24.9%) among non-AMI patients. Across 57 physicians, this difference varied from 6.9% (95% CI, -1.4%-15.3%) to 26.4% (95% CI, 21.5%-31.4%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE - For coronary lesions treated with PCI in China, PVA reported substantially higher readings of stenosis severity than QCA, with large variation across hospitals and physicians. These findings highlight the need to improve the accuracy of information used to guide treatment decisions in catheterization laboratories.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top