Display options
Cite
Ramezani F, Ahmadi S, Faridaalee G, et al. Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Emerg (Tehran). 2018;6(1):e61
Ramezani, F., Ahmadi, S., Faridaalee, G., Baratloo, A., & Yousefifard, M. (2018). Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 6(1), e61.
Ramezani, Fatemeh, et al. "Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Emergency (Tehran, Iran) vol. 6,1 (2018): e61.
Ramezani F, Ahmadi S, Faridaalee G, Baratloo A, Yousefifard M. Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Emerg (Tehran). 2018;6(1):e61. Epub 2018 Dec 15. PMID: 30788388; PMCID: PMC6368935.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Emerg (Tehran). 2018;6(1):e61. Epub 2018 Dec 15.

Value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes Decision Rule in the Detection of Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Emergency (Tehran, Iran)

Fatemeh Ramezani, Sajjad Ahmadi, Gholamreza Faridaalee, Alireza Baratloo, Mahmoud Yousefifard

Affiliations

  1. Physiology Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Emergency Medicine Department, Maragheh University of Medical Sciences; Maragheh; Iran.
  3. Department of Health, Maragheh University of Medical Sciences, Maragheh, Iran.
  4. Emergency Department, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 30788388 PMCID: PMC6368935

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There is still no consensus on the value of Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (MACS) decision rule in detecting acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analyzes is to summarize the clinical evidence in the evaluation of the value of MACS in the diagnosis of ACS.

METHODS: A literature search was performed on the Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes included acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and major adverse cardiac event (MACE). Data were analyzed in the STATA 14.0 statistical program and the results were reported as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

RESULTS: Finally, 8 articles included in the meta-analysis. The area under the SROC of MACS was excellent in rule out of AMI (AUC = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99) and MACE (AUC = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.98). The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS/history electrocardiogram alone MACS (HE-MACS) in the rule out of AMI were0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.37), respectively, and for the original MACS were in order 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.20-0.34),. The sensitivity and specificity of the troponin-only MACS / HE-MACS in the rule out of MACE were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.12-0.39) compared to the 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99) and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.22-0.33) for the original MACS.

CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that original MACS, troponin-only MACS, and HE-MACS are able to rule out AMI and MACE. However, further studies are needed in developing countries to confirm its external validity.

Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Decision Support Techniques; Diagnosis

Conflict of interest statement

There was no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Emerg Med J. 2010 Dec;27(12):895 - PubMed
  2. Eur Heart J. 2011 Dec;32(23):2999-3054 - PubMed
  3. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 - PubMed
  4. Heart. 2014 Sep 15;100(18):1462-8 - PubMed
  5. Emerg Med J. 2015 Oct;32(10):769-74 - PubMed
  6. Tanaffos. 2014;13(4):29-40 - PubMed
  7. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Sep;21(9):1537-44 - PubMed
  8. Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386(10012):2481-8 - PubMed
  9. Emerg (Tehran). 2015 Fall;3(4):127-36 - PubMed
  10. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;31(5):929-35 - PubMed
  11. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2016 Apr;20(2):153-61 - PubMed
  12. Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Feb;23(2):136-43 - PubMed
  13. Neuroscience. 2016 May 13;322:377-97 - PubMed
  14. Emerg Med J. 2017 Jun;34(6):349-356 - PubMed
  15. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016 Dec;78:102-111 - PubMed
  16. Emerg (Tehran). 2017;5(1):e37 - PubMed
  17. Emerg Med J. 2017 Aug;34(8):517-523 - PubMed
  18. BMC Nephrol. 2017 Apr 3;18(1):120 - PubMed
  19. Emerg Med J. 2017 Sep;34(9):586-592 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017 Dec;43(6):755-762 - PubMed
  21. Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):602-607 - PubMed
  22. J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Dec;13(6):581-591 - PubMed
  23. Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 10;8(1):325 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Emerg Med. 2018 Oct 04;:null - PubMed
  25. Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1736-1788 - PubMed

Publication Types