4.3 Article

DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE OF INITIAL SALIVARY ALPHA-AMYLASE ACTIVITY FOR ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE CHEST PAIN

期刊

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 553-560

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.06.040

关键词

salivary alpha-amylase; chest pain; acute myocardial infarction; emergency department

资金

  1. National Defense Medical Center [DOD98-01-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To rule out acute myocardial infarction(AMI) inchest pain patients constitutes a diagnostic challenge to emergency department (ED) physicians. Study Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic value of measuring salivary alpha-amylase (sAA) activity for detecting AMI in patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain. Methods: sAA activity was measured in a prospective cohort of 473 consecutive adult patients within 4 h of onset of chest pain. Comparisons were made between patients with a final diagnosis of AMI and those with non-AMI. Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression model were used to identify independent clinical predictors of AMI. Results: Initial sAA activity in the AMI group (n = 85; 266 +/- 127.6 U/mL) was significantly higher than in the non-AMI group (n = 388; 130 +/- 92.8 U/mL, p < 0.001). sAA activity levels were also significantly higher in patients with ST elevation AMI (n = 53) compared to in those with non-ST elevation AMI (n = 32) (300 +/- 141.1 vs. 210 +/- 74.1 U/mL, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of sAA activity for predicting AMI in patients with acute chest pain was 0.826 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.782-0.869), with diagnostic odds ratio 10.87 (95% CI 6.16-19.18). With a best cutoff value of 197.7 U/mL, the sAA activity revealed moderate sensitivity and specificity as an independent predictor of AMI (78.8% and 74.5%). Conclusions: High initial sAA activity is an independent predictor of AMI in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据