Is pre-hospital treatment of chest pain optimal in acute coronary syndrome? The relief of both pain and anxiety is needed

Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Anxiety and Pain During Acute Coronary Syndromes and the Risk of Developing Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Background Benzodiazepines and morphine are given during acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) to alleviate anxiety and pain, and β-blockers may also reduce pain. ACS may induce posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (PTSS). When taken during trauma other than ACS, benzodiazepines increase the risk of PTSS, but it is unknown if benzodiazepines increase the risk of PTSS in ACS. We examined the effects of drug exposure during ACS on the development of PTSS. Methods and Results Study participants were 154 patients with a verified ACS. Baseline demographics, clinical variables, and psychological measures were obtained through a medical history, through a psychometric assessment, and from patient records, and used as covariates in linear regression analysis. Three months after ACS, the severity of PTSS was assessed with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. During ACS, 37.7% of patients were exposed to benzodiazepines, whereas 72.1% were exposed to morphine and 88.3% were exposed to β-blockers, but only 7.1% were exposed to antidepressants. Eighteen (11.7%) patients developed clinical PTSD. Adjusting for all covariates, benzodiazepine use was significantly associated with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale total severity score (unstandardized coefficient B [SE], 0.589 [0.274]; partial r=0.18; P=0.032) and the reexperiencing subscore (B [SE], 0.433 [0.217]; partial r=0.17; P=0.047). Patients exposed to benzodiazepines had an almost 4-fold increased relative risk of developing clinical PTSD, adjusting for acute stress disorder symptoms (odds ratio, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.31-10.77). Morphine, β-blockers, and antidepressants showed no predictive value. Conclusions Notwithstanding short-term antianxiety effects during ACS, benzodiazepine use might increase the risk of ACS-induced PTSS with clinical significance, thereby compromising patients' quality of life and prognosis. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01781247.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Guidelines on the Acute Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Focused Update on Regionalization and Reperfusion

Rapid reperfusion of the infarct-related artery is the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Canada's geography presents unique challenges for timely delivery of reperfusion therapy for STEMI patients. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology STEMI guideline was developed to provide advice regarding the optimal acute management of STEMI patients irrespective of where they are initially identified: in the field, at a non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre or at a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre. We had also planned to evaluate and incorporate sex and gender considerations in the development of our recommendations. Unfortunately, inadequate enrollment of women in randomized trials, lack of publication of main outcomes stratified according to sex, and lack of inclusion of gender as a study variable in the available literature limited the feasibility of such an approach. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to develop specific evidence-based recommendations for the early identification of STEMI patients, practical aspects of patient transport, regional reperfusion decision-making, adjunctive prehospital interventions (oxygen, opioids, antiplatelet therapy), and procedural aspects of mechanical reperfusion (access site, thrombectomy, antithrombotic therapy, extent of revascularization). Emphasis is placed on integrating these recommendations as part of an organized regional network of STEMI care and the development of appropriate reperfusion and transportation pathways for any given region. It is anticipated that these guidelines will serve as a practical template to develop systems of care capable of providing optimal treatment for a wide range of STEMI patients.

Possible effects of a course in cardiovascular nursing on prehospital care of patients experiencing suspected acute coronary syndrome: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current research suggests that nurses can influence the outcome for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study has been to evaluate whether a course in cardiovascular nursing (CVN) can improve ambulance nurses' (ANs') prehospital care of patients experiencing suspected ACS, related to pain intensity.

METHODS

This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that was conducted in the ambulance services. Patients were allocated to one of two groups: in the first group, patients were treated by ANs who had attended the CVN course and in the second group patients were treated by ANs without this qualification. Inclusion criteria were: 1/pain raising suspicion of ACS, and 2/pain score ≥4 on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The primary outcome was the estimated intensity of pain or discomfort according to VAS 15 min after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were estimated intensity of pain or discomfort on admission to hospital and further requirement of pain treatment, as well as symptoms such as paleness and/or cold sweat; nausea and/or vomiting; anxiety, dyspnea, degree of alertness, respiratory depression and aggressiveness. A further secondary outcome measured was survival to 30 days. Lastly, a final diagnosis was made. A total of 38 ANs attended the CVN course. There were 1,747 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The pain score did not differ significantly between the two groups fifteen minutes after randomisation (median value of VAS was 4.0 in both groups). On admission to hospital the pain score was significantly lower for patients treated by an AN who had attended the CVN course (n = 332) compared with those treated by an AN who had not attended the course (n = 1,415) (median 2.5 and 3.0 respectively, p = 0.001). The ANs who had attended the course used higher doses of morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

An educational intervention with a CVN course did not relate significantly to more efficient pain relief in suspected ACS during the first 15 min. However, this intervention was associated with more effective pain relief later on in the prehospital setting. Thus, a CVN course for ANs appears to be associated with reduced pain intensity among patients experiencing suspected ACS. This result needs however to be confirmed in further trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System (registration number NCT00792181).

Morphine delays and attenuates ticagrelor exposure and action in patients with myocardial infarction: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled IMPRESSION trial

AIMS

The currently available data indicate a drug-drug interaction between morphine and oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, when administered together. The aim of this trial was to assess the influence of infused morphine on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor and its active metabolite (AR-C124910XX) in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind trial, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenously either morphine (5 mg) or placebo, followed by a 180 mg loading dose of ticagrelor. Pharmacokinetics was determined with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and ticagrelor antiplatelet effects were measured with up to three different platelet function tests: vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay, multiple electrode aggregometry and VerifyNow. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment was performed in 70 patients (35 in each study group). Morphine lowered the total exposure to ticagrelor and its active metabolite by 36% (AUC(0-12): 6307 vs. 9791 ng h/mL; P = 0.003), and 37% (AUC(0-12): 1503 vs. 2388 ng h/mL; P = 0.008), respectively, with a concomitant delay in maximal plasma concentration of ticagrelor (4 vs. 2 h; P = 0.004). Multiple regression analysis showed that lower AUC(0-12) values for ticagrelor were independently associated with the administration of morphine (P = 0.004) and the presence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (P = 0.014). All three methods of platelet reactivity assessment showed a stronger antiplatelet effect in the placebo group and a greater prevalence of high platelet reactivity in patients receiving morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine delays and attenuates ticagrelor exposure and action in patients with myocardial infarction. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217878.

Comparison of Fentanyl and Morphine in the Prehospital Treatment of Ischemic Type Chest Pain

In the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, reduction of sympathetic stress and catecholamine release is an important therapeutic goal. One method used to achieve this goal is pain reduction through the systemic administration of analgesia. Historically, morphine has been the analgesic of choice in ischemic cardiac pain. This randomized double-blind controlled trial seeks to prove the utility of fentanyl as an alternate first-line analgesic for ischemic-type chest pain in the prehospital setting. Successive patients who were treated for suspected ischemic chest pain in the emergency medical services system were considered eligible. Once chest pain was confirmed, patients received oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin therapy. If the ischemic-type chest pain continued the patient was randomized in a double-blinded fashion to treatment with either morphine or fentanyl. Pain scale scores, necessity for additional dosing, and rate of adverse events between the groups were assessed every 5 minutes and were compared using t-testing, Fisher's Exact test, or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) where appropriate. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of hypotension and the secondary outcome was pain reduction as measured by the visual analog score and numeric rating score. A total of 207 patients were randomized with 187 patients included in the final analysis. Of the 187 patients, 99 were in the morphine group and 88 in the fentanyl group. No statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to hypotension was found (morphine 5.1% vs. fentanyl 0%, p = 0.06). Baseline characteristics, necessity for additional dosing, and other adverse events between the two groups were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between the changes in visual analog scores and numeric rating scale scores for pain between the two groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.15, respectively). This study supports that fentanyl and morphine are comparable in providing analgesia for ischemic-type chest pain. Fentanyl appears to be a safe and effective alternative to morphine for the management of chest pain in the prehospital setting.

Anxiolytics in patients suffering a suspected acute coronary syndrome: multi-centre randomised controlled trial in Emergency Medical Service

BACKGROUND

The prehospital treatment of pain and discomfort among patients who suffer from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs a treatment strategy which combines relief of pain with relief of anxiety.

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact on pain and anxiety of the combination of an anxiolytic and an analgesic as compared with an analgesic alone in the prehospital setting of suspected ACS.

METHODS

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial compared the combination of Midazolam (Mi)+Morphine (Mo) and Mo alone. All measures took part: Prior to randomisation, 15 min thereafter and on admission to a hospital. Inclusion criteria were: 1) pain raising suspicion of ACS and 2) pain score ≥4.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

Pain score after 15 min.

RESULTS

In all, 890 patients were randomised to Mi+Mo and 873 to Mo alone. Pain was reduced from a median of 6 to 4 and finally to 3 in both groups. The mean dose of Mo was 5.3 mg in Mi+Mo and 6.0 mg in Mo alone (p<0.0001). Anxiety was reported in 66% in Mi+Mo and in 64% in Mo alone at randomisation (NS); 15 min thereafter in 31% and 39% (p=0.002) and finally in 12% and 26% respectively (p<0.0001). On admission to a hospital nausea or vomiting was reported in 9% in Mi+Mo and in 13% in Mo alone (p=0.003). Drowsiness differed; 15% and 14% were drowsy in Mi+Mo versus 2% and 3% in Mo alone respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that the combination of anxiolytics and analgesics as compared with analgesics alone reduced anxiety and the requirement of Morphine in the prehospital setting of acute coronary syndrome, this strategy did not reduce patients' estimation of pain (primary endpoint). More effective pain relief among these patients is warranted.