Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Int J Cardiol ; 227: 656-661, 2017 Jan 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27810290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The performance of the GRACE, HEART and TIMI scores were compared in predicting the probability of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in chest pain patients presenting at the emergency department (ED), in particular their ability to identify patients at low risk. METHODS: Chest pain patients presenting at the ED in nine Dutch hospitals were included. The primary outcome was MACE within 6weeks. The HEART score was determined by the treating physician at the ED. The GRACE and TIMI score were calculated based on prospectively collected data. Performance of the scores was compared by calculating AUC curves. Additionally, the number of low-risk patients identified by each score were compared at a fixed level of safety of at least 95% or 98% sensitivity. RESULTS: In total, 1748 patients were included. The AUC of GRACE, HEART, and TIMI were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76%), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.88%) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83%), respectively (all differences in AUC highly statistically significant). At an absolute level of safety of at least 98% sensitivity, the GRACE score identified 231 patients as "low risk" in which 2.2% a MACE was missed; the HEART score identified 381 patients as "low risk" with 0.8% missed MACE. The TIMI score identified no "low risk" patients at this safety level. CONCLUSIONS: The HEART score outperformed the GRACE and TIMI scores in discriminating between those with and without MACE in chest pain patients, and identified the largest group of low-risk patients at the same level of safety.


Subject(s)
Chest Pain/diagnosis , Chest Pain/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Heart Diseases/diagnosis , Heart Diseases/epidemiology , Severity of Illness Index , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Triage/methods
2.
Clin Nutr ; 34(3): 409-14, 2015 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25179468

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Especially in older adults, maintaining muscle mass is essential to perform activities of daily living. This requires a sufficient protein intake. However, protein intake in hospitalized older adults is often insufficient. Thus far different nutrition intervention strategies have failed to show success in reaching sufficient protein intake in hospitalized older adults. The effect of recently developed protein-enriched bread and drinking yoghurt on protein intake is still unknown. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the effect of protein-enriched bread and drinking yoghurt on the protein intake of acute hospitalized older adults (≥55 years). METHODS: This study was performed as a single blind randomized controlled trial in 47 hospitalized elderly acutely admitted to a university hospital. During three consecutive days participants received either ad libitum protein-enriched bread and drinking yoghurt or normal, non-enriched products as part of their daily meals. The protein-enriched bread contained 6.9 g of protein per serving and the normal bread 3.8 g of protein. For drinking yoghurt this was 20.0 g and 7.5 g of protein per serving respectively. The products were almost isocaloric. Food intake of participants was measured and nutritional values were calculated according to the Dutch Food Composition Table. An independent sample t-test was used to compare protein intake between the intervention and control group. RESULTS: Analyses illustrate a protein intake in the intervention group of 75.0 ± 33.2 g per day versus 58.4 ± 14.5 g in the control group (p = 0.039). Intervention patients had a mean protein intake of 1.1 g/kg/day, with 36% of the patients reaching the minimum requirement of 1.2 g/kg/day; in control patients this was 0.9 g/kg/day (p = 0.041) and 8% (p = 0.030). Bread and drinking yoghurt contributed almost equally to the increased intake of protein in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of protein-enriched bread and drinking yoghurt, consumed as part of regular meals, is a promising and feasible solution to increase the protein intake of acutely ill patients. It needs to be confirmed whether the use of these products will also result in a better clinical outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov ID number: NCT01907152.


Subject(s)
Bread/analysis , Dietary Proteins/administration & dosage , Feeding Behavior , Food, Fortified , Hospitalization , Yogurt/analysis , Activities of Daily Living , Acute Disease , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Dietary Carbohydrates/administration & dosage , Dietary Fats/administration & dosage , Dietary Fiber/administration & dosage , Energy Intake , Female , Humans , Male , Meals , Single-Blind Method
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...