Performance of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes decision rules in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Dizaji, Shayan Roshdi [1 ]
Ahmadzadeh, Koohyar [1 ]
Zarei, Hamed [1 ]
Miri, Reza [2 ]
Yousefifard, Mahmoud [1 ]
机构
[1] Iran Univ Med Sci, Physiol Res Ctr, Hemmat Highway,POB 14665354, Tehran, Iran
[2] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Prevent Cardiovasc Dis Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran
关键词
acute coronary syndrome; decision support techniques; diagnosis; ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RISK SCORES; CHEST-PAIN; SYNDROMES MACS; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; EXTERNAL VALIDATION; AID; DERIVATION; BIOMARKER;
D O I
10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001147
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Multiple decision-aiding models are available to help physicians identify acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and accelerate the decision-making process in emergency departments (EDs). This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Manchester Acute Coronary Syndrome (MACS) rule and its derivations, enhancing the evidence for their clinical use. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception until October 2023 for studies including adult ED patients with suspected cardiac chest pain and inconclusive findings requiring ACS risk-stratification. The predictive value of MACS, Troponin-only MACS (T-MACS), or History and Electrocardiogram-only MACS (HE-MACS) decision aids for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 30-day major adverse cardiac outcomes (MACEs) among patients admitted to ED with chest pain suspected of ACS. Overall sensitivity and specificity were synthesized using the 'Diagma' package in STATA statistical software. Applicability and risk of bias assessment were performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. For AMI detection, MACS has a sensitivity of 99% [confidence interval (CI): 97-100], specificity of 19% (CI: 10-32), and AUC of 0.816 (CI: 0.720-0.885). T-MACS shows a sensitivity of 98% (CI: 98-99), specificity of 35% (CI: 29-42), and AUC of 0.859 (CI: 0.824-0.887). HE-MACS exhibits a sensitivity of 99% (CI: 98-100), specificity of 9% (CI: 3-21), and AUC of 0.787 (CI: 0.647-0.882). For MACE detection, MACS demonstrates a sensitivity of 98% (CI: 94-100), specificity of 22% (CI: 10-42), and AUC of 0.804 (CI: 0.659-0.897). T-MACS displays a sensitivity of 96% (CI: 94-98), specificity of 36% (CI: 30-43), and AUC of 0.792 (CI: 0.748-0.830). HE-MACS maintains a sensitivity of 99% (CI: 97-99), specificity of 10% (CI 6-16), and AUC of 0.713 (CI: 0.625-0.787). Of all the MACS models, T-MACS displayed the highest overall accuracy due to its high sensitivity and significantly superior specificity. T-MACS exhibits very good diagnostic performance in predicting both AMI and MACE. This makes it a highly promising tool for managing patients with acute chest pain.
引用
收藏
页码:310 / 323
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Prevalence of anxiety and depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mejia, Percy Junior Castro
    Cassano, Pietro Dondero
    Moron, Percy Diaz
    Reategui, Monica Diaz
    Navarrete, Karem Menacho
    Cordova-Mendoza, Pedro
    PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2023, 46
  • [42] Acute coronary syndrome and its treatment outcomes in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bekalu Kebede
    Melese Getachew
    Samuel Agegnew
    Ephrem Mebratu Dagnew
    Dehnnet Abebe
    Anteneh Belayneh
    Bantayehu Addis Tegegne
    Tiringo Kebede
    Mekides Kiflu
    Yalemgeta Biyazin
    Yoseph Merkeb Alamneh
    Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 16
  • [43] Acute coronary syndrome and its treatment outcomes in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kebede, Bekalu
    Getachew, Melese
    Agegnew, Samuel
    Dagnew, Ephrem Mebratu
    Abebe, Dehnnet
    Belayneh, Anteneh
    Tegegne, Bantayehu Addis
    Kebede, Tiringo
    Kiflu, Mekides
    Biyazin, Yalemgeta
    Alamneh, Yoseph Merkeb
    JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2023, 16 (01)
  • [44] Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Fong, Lucas Chun Wah
    Lee, Nicholas Ho Cheung
    Yan, Andrew T.
    Ng, Ming-Yen
    CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 147 (01) : 1 - 13
  • [45] Prognostic value of copeptin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Lu, Jiapeng
    Wang, Siming
    He, Guangda
    Wang, Yanping
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (08):
  • [46] Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor for patient with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Fong, L. C. W.
    Lee, N.
    Yan, A. T.
    Ng, M. Y.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2020, 41 : 1434 - 1434
  • [47] Performance of Copeptin for Early Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 14,139 Patients
    Szarpak, Lukasz
    Lapinski, Marcin
    Gasecka, Aleksandra
    Pruc, Michal
    Drela, Wiktoria L.
    Koda, Mariusz
    Denegri, Andrea
    Peacock, Frank W.
    Jaguszewski, Milosz J.
    Filipiak, Krzysztof J.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND DISEASE, 2022, 9 (01)
  • [48] Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Undergoing Coronary Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Mateo, Fernando R.
    Cordeiro, Giulia Carvalhal De Almeida
    Sabloak, Rohan
    Maquera, Oscar Rivera
    Broberg, Amilcar Guaschino
    Rahima, M. Kenan
    Albuni, Mhd Kutaiba
    Muddana, Venkata
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 119 (10S): : S1459 - S1460
  • [49] Statins in acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis
    Saleh, JR
    Ebrahimi, R
    Shah, AP
    Wadhani, N
    Toggart, EJ
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2006, 47 (04) : 212A - 212A
  • [50] Effect of low-dose colchicine in acute and chronic coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Aimo, Alberto
    Figal, Domingo A. Pascual
    Bayes-Genis, Antoni
    Emdin, Michele
    Georgiopoulos, Georgios
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, 2021, 51 (04)