Search

Background: Patients with chest pain represent a large portion of emergency department (ED) presentations around the world. Accurate risk assessment to rule out acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is required. Aim: To measure accuracy and characteristics of ED doctors and nurses when assessing patients for suspected ACS and the associations with outcome. Methods: A sub-analysis of a large randomised trial that compared high-sensitivity troponin to conventional troponin was carried out. Both nurses and doctors conducted ACS risk assessments on 1857 patients and concordance comparisons were undertaken. Findings: There was no difference between the accuracy of ED nurses and doctors (c-statistic: 0.67 vs 0.68 respectively; P=0.35). Both clinician types made similar ACS risk assessments. Nurses with specialist qualifications and consultant doctors were the most accurate, at 65.4% and 74.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Nurses and doctors in the ED made similar ACS risk assessments but both were sub-optimal. Standard clinical pathways to assist ED doctors and nurses improve their ACS impression accuracy could be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Many meta-analyses have provided synthesised likelihood ratio data to aid clinical decision-making. However, much less has been published on how to safely combine clinical information in practice. We aimed to explore the benefits and risks of pooling clinical information during the ED assessment of suspected acute coronary syndrome. Methods Clinical information on 1776 patients was collected within a randomised trial conducted across five South Australian EDs between July 2011 and March 2013. Bayes theorem was used to calculate patient-specific post-test probabilities using age- and gender-specific pre-test probabilities and likelihood ratios corresponding to the presence or absence of 18 clinical factors. Model performance was assessed as the presence of adverse cardiac outcomes among patients theoretically discharged at a post-test probability less than 1%. Results Bayes theorem-based models containing high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-troponin) outperformed models excluding hs-troponin, as well as models utilising TIMI and GRACE scores. In models containing hs-troponin, a plateau in improving discharge safety was observed after the inclusion of four clinical factors. Models with fewer clinical factors better approximated the true event rate, tended to be safer and resulted in a smaller standard deviation in post-test probability estimates. Conclusions We showed that there is a definable point where additional information becomes uninformative and may actually lead to less certainty. This evidence supports the concept that clinical decision-making in the assessment of suspected acute coronary syndrome should be focused on obtaining the least amount of information that provides the highest benefit for informing the decisions of admission or discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Percutaneous thermal ablation using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are both widely available curative treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite significant advances, it remains unclear which modality results in better outcomes. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies was undertaken to compare the techniques in terms of effectiveness and safety. Methods: Electronic reference databases (Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central) were searched between January 1980 and May 2014 for human studies comparing RFA and MWA. The primary outcome was the risk of local tumor progression (LTP). Secondary outcomes were complete ablation (CA), overall survival, and major adverse events (AE). The ORs were combined across studies using the random-effects model. Results: Ten studies (two prospective and eight retrospective) were included, and the overall LTP rate was 13.6% (176/1298). There was no difference in LTP rates between RFA and MWA [OR (95% CI): 1.01(0.67-1.50), P = 0.9]. The CA rate, 1- and 3-year overall survival and major AE were similar between the two modalities ( P > 0.05 for all). In subgroup analysis, there was no difference in LTP rates according to study quality, but LTP rates were lower with MWA for treatment of larger tumors [1.88(1.10-3.23), P = 0.02]. There was no significant publication bias or inter-study heterogeneity ( I2 < 50% and P > 0.1) observed in any of the measured outcomes. Conclusion: Overall, both RFA and MWA are equally effective and safe, but MWA may be more effective compared to RFA in preventing LTP when treating larger tumors. Well-designed, larger, multicentre RCTs are required to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]