Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure: TRICA-EAHFE study. Miró, Ò., Tost, J., Herrero, P., Jacob, J., Martín-Sánchez, F. J., Gil, V., Fernández-Pérez, C., Escoda, R., Llorens, P., & ICA-SEMES Research Group European Journal of Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 23(6):435–441, 2016. doi abstract bibtex OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether prioritization of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in the Andorran Triage Model/Spanish Triage System (MAT/SET) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS) also allows the identification of different profiles of outcome and prognosis and determine whether either system has a better predictive capacity of outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AHF included in the Spanish EAHFE registry from hospitals using the MAT/SET or MTS were selected and divided according to the triage system used. Outcome variables included hospital admission, length of stay, death during admission, 3, 7, and 30-day all-cause mortality, and emergency department (ED) reconsultation at 30 days. The results were compared according to the level of priority and the triage system used. RESULTS: We included 3837 patients (MAT/SET=2474; MTS=1363) classified as follows: 4.0% level 1; 34.7% level 2; 55.1% level 3; and 6.3% levels 4-5. Both systems associated greater priority with higher rates of admission and mortality; the MTS associated greater priority with greater ED reconsultation and the MAT/SET found greater priority to be associated with less ED reconsultation. The discriminative capacity of the two scales for adverse outcomes was statistically significant, albeit poor, for almost all the outcome events and it was of scarce clinical relevance (Area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic between 0.458 and 0.661). CONCLUSION: The prediction of the outcome of patients with AHF determined with the MAT/SET or MTS showed scarce differences between the two systems, and their discriminative capacity does not seem to be clinically relevant.
@article{miro_short-term_2016,
title = {Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure: {TRICA}-{EAHFE} study},
volume = {23},
issn = {1473-5695},
shorttitle = {Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure},
doi = {10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000290},
abstract = {OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether prioritization of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in the Andorran Triage Model/Spanish Triage System (MAT/SET) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS) also allows the identification of different profiles of outcome and prognosis and determine whether either system has a better predictive capacity of outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AHF included in the Spanish EAHFE registry from hospitals using the MAT/SET or MTS were selected and divided according to the triage system used. Outcome variables included hospital admission, length of stay, death during admission, 3, 7, and 30-day all-cause mortality, and emergency department (ED) reconsultation at 30 days. The results were compared according to the level of priority and the triage system used.
RESULTS: We included 3837 patients (MAT/SET=2474; MTS=1363) classified as follows: 4.0\% level 1; 34.7\% level 2; 55.1\% level 3; and 6.3\% levels 4-5. Both systems associated greater priority with higher rates of admission and mortality; the MTS associated greater priority with greater ED reconsultation and the MAT/SET found greater priority to be associated with less ED reconsultation. The discriminative capacity of the two scales for adverse outcomes was statistically significant, albeit poor, for almost all the outcome events and it was of scarce clinical relevance (Area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic between 0.458 and 0.661).
CONCLUSION: The prediction of the outcome of patients with AHF determined with the MAT/SET or MTS showed scarce differences between the two systems, and their discriminative capacity does not seem to be clinically relevant.},
language = {ENG},
number = {6},
journal = {European Journal of Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine},
author = {Miró, Òscar and Tost, Josep and Herrero, Pablo and Jacob, Javier and Martín-Sánchez, Francisco Javier and Gil, Víctor and Fernández-Pérez, Cristina and Escoda, Rosa and Llorens, Pere and {ICA-SEMES Research Group}},
year = {2016},
pmid = {26225614},
keywords = {Article},
pages = {435--441},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"xJ4ShEgtyLHqENSXb","bibbaseid":"mir-tost-herrero-jacob-martnsnchez-gil-fernndezprez-escoda-etal-shorttermpredictivecapacityoftwodifferenttriagesystemsinpatientswithacuteheartfailuretricaeahfestudy-2016","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-10-11T03:50:30.737Z","title":"Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure: TRICA-EAHFE study","author_short":["Miró, Ò.","Tost, J.","Herrero, P.","Jacob, J.","Martín-Sánchez, F. J.","Gil, V.","Fernández-Pérez, C.","Escoda, R.","Llorens, P.","ICA-SEMES Research Group"],"year":2016,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/Bibliotecacst","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure: TRICA-EAHFE study","volume":"23","issn":"1473-5695","shorttitle":"Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000290","abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether prioritization of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in the Andorran Triage Model/Spanish Triage System (MAT/SET) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS) also allows the identification of different profiles of outcome and prognosis and determine whether either system has a better predictive capacity of outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AHF included in the Spanish EAHFE registry from hospitals using the MAT/SET or MTS were selected and divided according to the triage system used. Outcome variables included hospital admission, length of stay, death during admission, 3, 7, and 30-day all-cause mortality, and emergency department (ED) reconsultation at 30 days. The results were compared according to the level of priority and the triage system used. RESULTS: We included 3837 patients (MAT/SET=2474; MTS=1363) classified as follows: 4.0% level 1; 34.7% level 2; 55.1% level 3; and 6.3% levels 4-5. Both systems associated greater priority with higher rates of admission and mortality; the MTS associated greater priority with greater ED reconsultation and the MAT/SET found greater priority to be associated with less ED reconsultation. The discriminative capacity of the two scales for adverse outcomes was statistically significant, albeit poor, for almost all the outcome events and it was of scarce clinical relevance (Area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic between 0.458 and 0.661). CONCLUSION: The prediction of the outcome of patients with AHF determined with the MAT/SET or MTS showed scarce differences between the two systems, and their discriminative capacity does not seem to be clinically relevant.","language":"ENG","number":"6","journal":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Miró"],"firstnames":["Òscar"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Tost"],"firstnames":["Josep"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Herrero"],"firstnames":["Pablo"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Jacob"],"firstnames":["Javier"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Martín-Sánchez"],"firstnames":["Francisco","Javier"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gil"],"firstnames":["Víctor"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fernández-Pérez"],"firstnames":["Cristina"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Escoda"],"firstnames":["Rosa"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Llorens"],"firstnames":["Pere"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":[],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["ICA-SEMES Research Group"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2016","pmid":"26225614","keywords":"Article","pages":"435–441","bibtex":"@article{miro_short-term_2016,\n\ttitle = {Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure: {TRICA}-{EAHFE} study},\n\tvolume = {23},\n\tissn = {1473-5695},\n\tshorttitle = {Short-term predictive capacity of two different triage systems in patients with acute heart failure},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000290},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether prioritization of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in the Andorran Triage Model/Spanish Triage System (MAT/SET) and the Manchester Triage System (MTS) also allows the identification of different profiles of outcome and prognosis and determine whether either system has a better predictive capacity of outcomes.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AHF included in the Spanish EAHFE registry from hospitals using the MAT/SET or MTS were selected and divided according to the triage system used. Outcome variables included hospital admission, length of stay, death during admission, 3, 7, and 30-day all-cause mortality, and emergency department (ED) reconsultation at 30 days. The results were compared according to the level of priority and the triage system used.\nRESULTS: We included 3837 patients (MAT/SET=2474; MTS=1363) classified as follows: 4.0\\% level 1; 34.7\\% level 2; 55.1\\% level 3; and 6.3\\% levels 4-5. Both systems associated greater priority with higher rates of admission and mortality; the MTS associated greater priority with greater ED reconsultation and the MAT/SET found greater priority to be associated with less ED reconsultation. The discriminative capacity of the two scales for adverse outcomes was statistically significant, albeit poor, for almost all the outcome events and it was of scarce clinical relevance (Area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic between 0.458 and 0.661).\nCONCLUSION: The prediction of the outcome of patients with AHF determined with the MAT/SET or MTS showed scarce differences between the two systems, and their discriminative capacity does not seem to be clinically relevant.},\n\tlanguage = {ENG},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {European Journal of Emergency Medicine: Official Journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Miró, Òscar and Tost, Josep and Herrero, Pablo and Jacob, Javier and Martín-Sánchez, Francisco Javier and Gil, Víctor and Fernández-Pérez, Cristina and Escoda, Rosa and Llorens, Pere and {ICA-SEMES Research Group}},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tpmid = {26225614},\n\tkeywords = {Article},\n\tpages = {435--441},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Miró, Ò.","Tost, J.","Herrero, P.","Jacob, J.","Martín-Sánchez, F. J.","Gil, V.","Fernández-Pérez, C.","Escoda, R.","Llorens, P.","ICA-SEMES Research Group"],"key":"miro_short-term_2016","id":"miro_short-term_2016","bibbaseid":"mir-tost-herrero-jacob-martnsnchez-gil-fernndezprez-escoda-etal-shorttermpredictivecapacityoftwodifferenttriagesystemsinpatientswithacuteheartfailuretricaeahfestudy-2016","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Article"],"downloads":0,"html":"","metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"search_terms":["short","term","predictive","capacity","two","different","triage","systems","patients","acute","heart","failure","trica","eahfe","study","miró","tost","herrero","jacob","martín-sánchez","gil","fernández-pérez","escoda","llorens","ica-semes research group"],"keywords":["article"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["TR9pX4mH5rDPr29Zo"]}