“射血分数低于50%”警示对非心脏科医师诊疗心衰患者的影响
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

通讯作者:

基金项目:

四川大学华西医院135卓越计划(2020HXFH045);四川省科技计划项目(2017SZ005)


Impact of the warning label “Ejection Fraction <50%” on the management of heart failure patients in non-cardiac specialists
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
    摘要:

    探讨超声心动图报告上增加“射血分数(LVEF)低于50%”警示标记,能否提高非心脏科医师对心力衰竭(HF)患者的关注度并提高诊疗质量。方法 连续纳入2018年1~6月在非心脏科住院且超声心动图LVEF<50%的患者,在其报告上加盖“射血分数低于50%”警示标记作为标记组(n=359)。回顾性纳入2017年1~6月相似的住院患者作为未标记组(n=367)。从医院信息系统中提取患者的人口学数据和临床资料,并通过该系统记录非心脏科医师是否有HF诊疗行为,包括HF诊断、N端脑利钠肽前体(NT-proBNP)检测、心脏科会诊、心脏科门诊推荐、指南推荐的药物治疗和心脏科门诊就诊。对比两组间HF患者接受诊疗行为差异。并根据HF分型、住院科室及是否接受心内科会诊对患者进行分组并对比两组患者间的差异。结果 标记组与未标记组相比,心脏科会诊率和心脏科门诊推荐率更高(P<0.05),但两组间HF诊断率、NT-proBNP检测率、指南推荐的药物治疗使用率以及心脏科门诊就诊率均无差异(P>0.05)。根据LVEF减低程度将HF患者分为LVEF轻度减低(40%~50%)的心衰组(HFmrEF组)和LVEF减低(<40%)的心衰组(HFrEF组)。在HFmrEF组中,标记组心脏科会诊率和心脏科门诊推荐率高于未标记组(P<0.05),而在HFrEF亚组中无统计学差异(P>0.05)。Logistic回归分析发现“射血分数低于50%”警示标记是增加心脏科会诊可能性的独立因素(OR=1.45,P=0.02)。结论 声心动图报告上“射血分数低于50%”警示标记可提高非心脏科医师对HF,尤其是HFmrEF患者的关注度,提高心脏科会诊率和心脏科门诊推荐率。

    Abstract:

    he study aimed to evaluate the impact of the warning label “Ejection Fraction (LVEF)<50%”on the delivery of care to heart failure (HF) patients in non cardiology settings. Methods Non-cardiac inpatients underwent echocardiography from January to June 2018 were prospectively enrolled, with a warning label stating “Ejection Fraction <50%”added on echocardiography reports if they had LVEF of <50% (Labeled group). A similar group of patients retrospectively recruited from January to June 2017 were as the control group (Unlabeled group). HF-related management during hospitalization collected by hospital information system were compared between the two groups, including the rates of HF diagnosis, N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing, in-hospital cardiology consultation, referral to a cardiology clinic, prescription of HF guideline directed medical therapy and cardiology clinic visit. All patients were subdivided into HF with mildly-reduced LVEF (40%~50%, HFmrEF) and HF with reduced LVEF (<40%, HFrEF) within the Labeled and Unlabeled group. Similarly, we subdivided subjects into 'Medical' and 'Surgical' as per their admission specialties and whether they received in-hospital cardiology consultation. Results Com-pared to the unlabeled group, the labeled group had a higher rate of referral to a cardiol-ogy clinic and requests for cardiology consultation. No difference was found in the rate of HF diagnosis, request for NT-proBNP testing, guideline directed medical therapy and cardiology clinic visit. The Labeled group had higher rate of cardiology consultation and referral to a cardiology clinic was significant in HF patients with LVEF 40%~50% (HFmrEF) (P<0.05), but not in HF patients with LVEF<40% (HFrEF). By Logistic regression analysis, the Warning Label was independently associated with an increased odds ratio for cardiology consultation (OR=1.45,P=0.02).Conclusion The warning label enhanced the specialist intervention for HF patients treated in non cardiology settings, especially in the patients with mildly reduced LVEF.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2022-11-21
您是第位访问者
网站版权所有:《西部医学》编辑部     蜀ICP备18038379号-4
地址:四川省成都市武侯区小天竺街75号财富国际18F-1号    邮政编码:610041
电话:028-85570072/85588403 本网站支持 IPv6    E-mail:xbyxqk@163.com
技术支持:北京勤云科技发展有限公司