http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Judd E. Hollander (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Jennifer L. White,Judd E. Hollander,Jesse M. Pines,Peter M. Mullins,Anna Marie Chang 대한응급의학회 2019 Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine Vol.6 No.2
Objective Cardiogenic syncope can present as a seizure. The distinction between seizure disorder and cardiogenic syncope can only be made if one considers the diagnosis. Our main objective was to identify whether patients presenting with a chief complaint (reason for visit) as seizure or syncope received an electrocardiogram in the emergency department across all age groups. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected in the 2010 to 2014 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey comparing patients presenting with a chief complaint of syncope versus seizure to determine likelihood of getting an evaluation for possible life threatening cardiovascular disease. The primary endpoint was receiving an electrocardiogram in the emergency department; secondary endpoint was receiving cardiac biomarkers. Results There was a total of 144,094 patient encounters. Of these visits, 1,553 had syncope and 1,470 had seizure (60.3% vs. 44.2% female, 19.9% vs. 29.0% non-white). After adjusting for age, sex, mode of arrival and insurance, patients with syncope were more likely to receive an electrocardiogram compared to patients with seizure (odds ratio, 10.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.52 to 13.84). This was true across all age groups (0 to 18 years, 56% vs. 7.5%; 18 to 44 years, 60% vs. 27%; 45 to 64 years, 82% vs. 41%; ≥65 years, 85% vs. 68%; P<0.01 for all). Car- diac biomarkers were also obtained more frequently in adult patients with syncope patients (18 to 44 years, 17.5% vs. 10.5%; 45 to 64 years, 33.8% vs. 21.4%; ≥65 years, 47.1% vs. 32.3%; P<0.01 for all). Conclusion Patients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope received an electrocar- diogram and cardiac biomarkers more frequently than those that had seizure.
-
Can a Point-of-Care Troponin I Assay be as Good as a Central Laboratory Assay? A MIDAS Investigation
W. Frank Peacock,Deborah Diercks,Robert Birkhahn,Adam J. Singer,Judd E. Hollander,Richard Nowak,Basmah Safdar,Chadwick D. Miller,Mary Peberdy,Francis Counselman,Abhinav Chandra,Joshua Kosowsky,James N 대한진단검사의학회 2016 Annals of Laboratory Medicine Vol.36 No.5
Background: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Alere Triage Cardio3 Tropinin I (TnI) assay (Alere, Inc., USA) and the PathFast cTnI-II (Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corporation, Japan) against the central laboratory assay Singulex Erenna TnI assay (Singulex, USA). Methods: Using the Markers in the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndromes (MIDAS) study population, we evaluated the ability of three different assays to identify patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The MIDAS dataset, described elsewhere, is a prospective multicenter dataset of emergency department (ED) patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and a planned objective myocardial perfusion evaluation. Myocardial infarction (MI) was diagnosed by central adjudication. Results: The C-statistic with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for diagnosing MI by using a common population (n=241) was 0.95 (0.91-0.99), 0.95 (0.91-0.99), and 0.93 (0.89-0.97) for the Triage, Singulex, and PathFast assays, respectively. Of samples with detectable troponin, the absolute values had high Pearson (RP) and Spearman (RS) correlations and were RP =0.94 and RS=0.94 for Triage vs Singulex, RP =0.93 and RS=0.85 for Triage vs PathFast, and RP =0.89 and RS=0.73 for PathFast vs Singulex. Conclusions: In a single comparative population of ED patients with suspected ACS, the Triage Cardio3 TnI, PathFast, and Singulex TnI assays provided similar diagnostic performance for MI.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
