An examination of clinical intuition in risk assessment among acute coronary syndromes patients: Observations from a prospective multi-center international observational registry

Derek P. Chew, Craig Juergens, John French, Will Parsonage, Matthew Horsfall, David Brieger, Stephen Quinn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background As there are limited data evaluating "clinical intuition" in risk prediction among acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients. We evaluated the relationship between perceived and "scored" risk in ACS patients, and their association with care and outcome. Methods and results Within a prospective multi-center international ACS study from 58 hospitals in Australia, China, India and Russia enrolling patients between May 2009 and February 2011, at least 2 physicians involved in each patient's care estimated the patient's untreated risk, and the change in risk with invasive management. The association between clinical factors and physician perceived risk was assessed with multilevel mixed-effects regression models. Risk underestimation was defined as when physician-predicted risk was lower than GRACE score calculated risk and was used to compare clinical care and 6 month mortality. In total, 1542 patients and 4230 patient-specific physicians' estimates were obtained. By 6 months 48/1542 (3.1%) of patients had died compared with an estimated rate of 2.5% with full treatment. Advanced age, hypotension, tachycardia and ST changes on ECG were associated with increased perceived risk, while female gender was associated with lower perceived risk. Clinician risk underestimation was associated with less guideline therapy and higher 6-month mortality (not underestimated: 10/967 (1.0%) vs. one physician underestimated: 25/429 (5.8%) vs. all physician's underestimated: 13/146 (8.9%), any underestimation vs. no underestimation adjusted OR: 6.0 [95% CI: 2.3-15.5, p < 0.001]). Conclusions Clinical risk prediction using established risk characteristics is not consistently observed in clinical practice. Studies evaluating the implementation and outcomes associated with objective risk prediction are warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-216
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume171
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2014

Keywords

  • Acute coronary syndromes
  • Clinical intuition
  • Risk prediction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this