• Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.264-271
• /
• 2018

Objective For patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), symptoms assessed by emergency medical services (EMS) providers have a critical role in prehospital treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMS provider-assessed cardiac symptoms of AMI. Methods Patients transported by EMS to 4 study hospitals from 2008 to 2012 were included. Using EMS and administrative emergency department databases, patients were stratified according to the presence of EMS-assessed cardiac symptoms and emergency department diagnosis of AMI. Cardiac symptoms were defined as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, and syncope. Disproportionate stratified sampling was used, and medical records of sampled patients were reviewed to identify an actual diagnosis of AMI. Using inverse probability weighting, verification bias-corrected diagnostic performance was estimated. Results Overall, 92,353 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 13,971 (15.1%) complained of cardiac symptoms to EMS providers. A total of 775 patients were sampled for hospital record review. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EMS provider-assessed cardiac symptoms for the final diagnosis of AMI was 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.8 to 75.7), 85.3% (95% CI, 85.3 to 85.4), 3.9% (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.2), and 99.7% (95% CI, 99.7 to 99.8), respectively. Conclusion We found that EMS provider-assessed cardiac symptoms had moderate sensitivity and high specificity for diagnosis of AMI. EMS policymakers can use these data to evaluate the pertinence of specific prehospital treatment of AMI.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.242-251
• /
• 2024

Background: This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used. Methods: We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons. Results: A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177). After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation-related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17-11.93; p<0.001). Conclusion: Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves. The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.