3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating possible acute coronary syndrome in primary care: the value of signs, symptoms, and plasma heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP). A diagnostic study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Additional diagnostic means could be of added value when evaluating possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in primary care.

          Aim

          To determine whether heart-type fatty acid-binding protein (H-FABP)-based point-of-care (POC) biomarker testing, embedded in a clinical decision rule (CDR), is helpful to the GP when evaluating possible ACS.

          Design & setting

          A prospective, non-randomised, double-blinded, diagnostic derivation study was undertaken, with a delayed-type cross-sectional diagnostic model among GPs in the Netherlands and Belgium.

          Method

          Signs and symptoms predicting acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or ACS were identified using both logistic regression analysis, and classification and regression trees (CART). Diagnostic values of the POC H-FABP test (cut-off value 4 ng/ml) alone and as part of a CDR were determined.

          Results

          A total of 303 participants (48.8% male) with chest pain or discomfort who had consulted a GP were enrolled. ACS was found in 32 (10.6%) of these 303 patients. For ACS, sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of the POC H-FABP test was 25.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.5 to 44.9) and 91.6% (95% CI = 87.6% to 94.5%), respectively. The area under the receiver operating curve of the optimal CDR was 0.78 for ACS.

          Conclusion

          Sensitivity of the current H-FABP POC test (cut-off value 4 ng/ml) as a stand-alone test is poor, either owing to limitations of the marker or of the test device. Usability of a CDR derived from these results is doubtful: the number of ACS cases missed by the GP is reduced but, as a consequence, disproportionally more ACS-negative patients are referred.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine.

          The purpose of this review is to present a guide to help readers critically appraise the methodologic quality of an article or articles describing a clinical decision rule. This guide will also be useful to clinical researchers who wish to answer 1 or more questions detailed in this article. We consider the 6 major stages in the development and testing of a new clinical decision rule and discuss a number of standards within each stage. We use examples from emergency medicine and, in particular, examples from our own research on clinical decisions rules for radiography in trauma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

            Clinical experience provides clinicians with an intuitive sense of which findings on history, physical examination, and investigation are critical in making an accurate diagnosis, or an accurate assessment of a patient's fate. A clinical decision rule (CDR) is a clinical tool that quantifies the individual contributions that various components of the history, physical examination, and basic laboratory results make toward the diagnosis, prognosis, or likely response to treatment in a patient. Clinical decision rules attempt to formally test, simplify, and increase the accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic and prognostic assessments. Existing CDRs guide clinicians, establish pretest probability, provide screening tests for common problems, and estimate risk. Three steps are involved in the development and testing of a CDR: creation of the rule, testing or validating the rule, and assessing the impact of the rule on clinical behavior. Clinicians evaluating CDRs for possible clinical use should assess the following components: the method of derivation; the validation of the CDR to ensure that its repeated use leads to the same results; and its predictive power. We consider CDRs that have been validated in a new clinical setting to be level 1 CDRs and most appropriate for implementation. Level 1 CDRs have the potential to inform clinical judgment, to change clinical behavior, and to reduce unnecessary costs, while maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2000;284:79-84
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              ACCF 2012 expert consensus document on practical clinical considerations in the interpretation of troponin elevations: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation task force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJGP Open
                BJGP Open
                bjgpoa
                bjgpoa
                BJGP Open
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                2398-3795
                October 2019
                10 July 2019
                10 July 2019
                : 3
                : 3
                : bjgpopen19X101652
                Affiliations
                [1 ] deptGeneral Practitioner, PhD, Department of Family Medicine , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [2 ] deptAssistant Professor, Department of Methodology and Statistics , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [3 ] deptCardiologist, Department of Cardiology , Zuyderland Hospital , Heerlen, the Netherlands
                [4 ] deptAssistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [5 ] deptProfessor, Department of Public Health and Primary Care , Catholic University Leuven , Leuven, Belgium
                [6 ] deptProfessor, Department of Family Medicine , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [7 ] deptProfessor, Department of Genetics & Cell Biology , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                [8 ] deptProfessor, Department of Family Medicine , Maastricht University , Maastricht, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                *For correspondence: Robert TA Willemsen, robert.willemsen@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl
                Article
                01652
                10.3399/bjgpopen19X101652
                6970583
                31581111
                dc4b3db6-04a5-44c6-953f-d0ae36769cb6
                Copyright © 2019, The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

                History
                : 18 April 2019
                : 24 April 2019
                Categories
                Research

                primary health care,chest pain,acute coronary syndrome,early diagnosis,point-of-care testing,biomarkers

                Comments

                Comment on this article