* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download RADIONUCLIDE VENTRICULOGRAPY Vs CHEST X-RAY
Survey
Document related concepts
Remote ischemic conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Cardiac contractility modulation wikipedia , lookup
History of invasive and interventional cardiology wikipedia , lookup
Drug-eluting stent wikipedia , lookup
Jatene procedure wikipedia , lookup
Quantium Medical Cardiac Output wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Observer Reproducibility and Validity of Systems for Clinical Classification of Stable Angina Pectoris Patients HW Christensen, W Vach, T Haghfelt, PF Høilund-Carlsen Departments of Nuclear Medicine and Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Department of Statistics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Objective Results To elucidate the reproducibility and validity of commonly used systems for clinical classification of patients with stable angina pectoris. Observers agreed 100% on the presence (n=45) or absence (n=11) of angina. Further, they agreed in 52 (93%), 48 (86%), and 42 (75%) patients with regard to type of angina, CCS grade, and NYHA class, respectively. In the remaining patients, they disagreed by one class only. The positive and negative predictive values of clinical angina (typical or atypical) for perfusion abnormalities were 55% and 82%, respectively (fig 1A), and for coronary artery disease 53% and 47%, respectively (fig 1B). There was no close relationship between the type or the severity of pain and the perfusion pattern, nor between VAS and CCS gradings, or NYHA class and ejection fraction. Background Despite their frequent use these systems have rarely been tested with regard to reproducibility or against a suitable reference. Materials and Methods Figure 1A: Angina type versus myocardial perfusion imaging 30 15 20 10 2 4 MPI 10 9 Irreversibel 7 5 Reversibel 0 A total of 56 patients scheduled for coronary angiography because of stable angina pectoris were classified clinically by two independent observers with regard to 1) type (no chest pain, non-cardiac pain, atypical angina, typical angina) and 2) severity (Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class (CCS) of chest pain as well as 3) cardiac functional status (New York Heart Association (NYHA)). Myocardial perfusion imaging was carried out later on the same day in 55 patients including measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction in 46. Coronary angiography was undertaken later (mean 2.3 months) in 51. Conclusion Observers agreed surprisingly well with regard to presence, type, and severity of angina pectoris, and less well with respect to cardiac functional status. Clincal prediction of myocardial perfusion pattern was inaccurate, and clinical judgments and objective recordings were not interrelated. Normal No angina Atypical angina Non-cardiac Typical angina Figure 1B: Angina type versus coronary angiography 30 5 20 2 4 CAG 10 3 2 11 3VD 4 8 2VD 6 5 1VD 0 No CAD No angina Contact: [email protected] Atypical angina Non-cardiac angina Typical angina