CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial OPTIMAL USE OF LIPID-LOWERING THERAPY AFTER ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES: A Position Paper endorsed by the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) Comparison of the Preventive Efficacy of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin in Post-Contrast Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration The prognostic role of mid-range ejection fraction in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction New technologies for intensive prevention programs after myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the NET-IPP trial High-Sensitivity Troponin and The Application of Risk Stratification Thresholds in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome
|<<... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ...>>|

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 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top