Prevalence and prognostic importance of lung ultrasound findings in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review

IntroductionChest pain is one of the most common reasons for ambulance callouts and presentation to Emergency Departments (EDs). Differentiating patients with serious conditions (e.g. acute coronary syndrome [ACS]) from the majority, who have self-limiting, non-cardiac conditions is extremely challenging. This causes over-triage and over-use of healthcare resources. We aimed to systematically review existing evidence on the accuracy of emergency telephone triage to detect ACS or life-threatening conditions associated with chest pain.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two independent investigators searched the Embase, Medline, and Cinahl databases for relevant papers. We included retrospective and prospective cohort studies written in English and investigating EMS telephone triage for chest pain patients linked with final diagnosis of ACS. Studies were summarised in a narrative format as the data were not suitable for meta-analysis.ResultIn total, 553 studies were identified from the literature search and cross-referencing. After excluding 550 studies, three were eligible for inclusion. Among those 3 studies, there are different prediction models developed by authors with variation in variables to detect ACS. The result showed that dispatch triage tools have good sensitivity to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions although they are used to triage sign and symptoms rather than diagnosing the patients. On the other hand, prediction models were built to detect ACS and life-threatening conditions and therefore it showed better sensitivity and NPV.ConclusionEMS dispatch systems accuracy for ACS and life-threatening conditions associated with chest pain is good. Since the dispatch tools were built to triage ambulance response priority based on sign and symptoms, this led to over triage among non-life-threatening chest pain patients. Over triage were slightly reduced by deriving prediction models and showed better sensitivity.

Download Full-text

Abstract 309: Is Right Bundle Branch Block Associated with Poor Outcomes in the Setting of an Acute Coronary Syndrome? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes ◽

10.1161/circoutcomes.7.suppl_1.309 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 7 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Ahmad Hazem ◽

Sunita Sharma ◽

Amit Sharma ◽

Cameron Leitch ◽

Roopalakshmi Sharadanant ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽

Right Bundle Branch Block ◽

Risk Ratio ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Forest Plot ◽

Bundle Branch Block ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

All Cause Mortality

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

Download Full-text