Advances in clinical management of acute myocardial infarction in the past 25 years

Validation of the REGARDS Severe Sepsis Risk Score

There are no validated systems for characterizing long-term risk of severe sepsis in community-dwelling adults. We tested the ability of the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke-Severe Sepsis Risk Score (REGARDS-SSRS) to predict 10-year severe sepsis risk in separate cohorts of community-dwelling adults. We internally tested the REGARDS-SSRS on the REGARDS-Medicare subcohort. We then externally validated the REGARDS-SSRS using (1) the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) and (2) the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohorts. Participants included community-dwelling adults: REGARDS-Medicare, age ≥65 years, n = 9522; CHS, age ≥65 years, n = 5888; ARIC, age 45–64 years, n = 11,584. The primary exposure was 10-year severe sepsis risk, predicted by the REGARDS-SSRS from participant sociodemographics, health behaviors, chronic medical conditions and select biomarkers. The primary outcome was first severe sepsis hospitalizations, defined as the concurrent presence of ICD-9 discharge diagnoses for a serious infection and organ dysfunction. Median SSRS in the cohorts were: REGARDS-Medicare 11 points (IQR 7–16), CHS 10 (IQR 6–15), ARIC 7 (IQR 5–10). Severe sepsis incidence rates were: REGARDS-Medicare 30.7 per 1000 person-years (95% CI: 29.2–32.2); CHS 11.9 (10.9–12.9); ARIC 6.8 (6.3–7.3). SSRS discrimination for first severe sepsis events were: REGARDS-Medicare C-statistic 0.704 (95% CI: 0.691–0.718), CHS 0.696 (0.675–0.716), ARIC 0.697 (0.677–0.716). The REGARDS-SRSS may potentially play a role in identifying community-dwelling adults at high severe sepsis risk.

Derivation of Novel Risk Prediction Scores for Community-Acquired Sepsis and Severe Sepsis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to derive and internally validate a Sepsis Risk Score and a Severe Sepsis Risk Score predicting future sepsis and severe sepsis events among community-dwelling adults.

DESIGN

National population-based cohort.

SETTING

United States.

SUBJECTS

A total of 30,239 community-dwelling adults 45 years old or older in the national REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Over a median of 6.6 years (interquartile range, 5.1-8.1 yr) of follow-up, there were 1,532 first sepsis (prevalence 8.3 per 1,000 person-years) and 1,151 first severe sepsis (6.2 per 1,000 person-years) events. Risk factors in the best derived Sepsis Risk Score and Severe Sepsis Risk Score included chronic lung disease, age 75 years or older, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, tobacco use, white race, stroke, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, obesity, hypertension, deep vein thrombosis, male sex, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein greater than 3.0 mg/dL, cystatin C ≥1.11 mg/dL, estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m, and albumin-to-creatinine ratio protein greater than 30 μg/mg. Sepsis Risk Score risk categories were very low (0-3 points; 2.3 events per 1,000 person-years), low (4-6; 4.1), medium (7-9; 6.5), high (10-12; 9.7), and very high (13-38; 21.1). Severe Sepsis Risk Score risk categories were very low (0-5 points; 1.5 events per 1,000 person-years), low (6-9; 3.4), medium (10-13; 6.7), high (14-17; 9.9), and very high (18-45; 22.1). The Sepsis Risk Score and Severe Sepsis Risk Score exhibited good discrimination (bootstrapped C index, 0.703 and 0.742) and calibration (p = 0.65 and 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The Sepsis Risk Score and Severe Sepsis Risk Score predict 10-year sepsis and severe sepsis risk among community-dwelling adults and may aid in sepsis prevention or mitigation efforts.

Current practice patterns in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Survey of the American College of Chest Physicians

Over the past decade, the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction has undergone remarkable change due in part to the availability of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. Many of these techniques have gained widespread acceptance and use without the benefit of studies demonstrating efficacy. A survey of 391 members of the Section on Clinical Cardiology of the American College of Chest Physicians was conducted to assess current practice patterns in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Significant differences in the routine (greater than or equal to 50 percent of the time) use of various management approaches were found, with exercise tolerance testing, echocardiography, Holter monitoring, and cardiac rehabilitation frequently employed, whereas electrophysiologic studies, pyrophosphate scans, pulmonary artery catheterization, and cardiac pacing were infrequently used. Significant differences in the use of these procedures were noted with regard to the age of the physician and his or her geographic location of practice. These differences in practice patterns indicate that physicians have not reached consensus with regard to the value of these new diagnostic procedures and therapeutic approaches in the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Given the incremental costs of these procedures, clinical trials to assess their efficacy are clearly indicated.

Reperfusion protocol and results in 738 patients with evolving myocardial infarction

Reperfusion is an accepted therapy for evolving myocardial infarction (MI), as successful reperfusion reduces morbidity and mortality. A team approach between the cardiologists and cardiac surgeons must be applied to achieve reperfusion within a finite time from the onset of coronary thrombosis. Analysis of 738 patients grouped them by successful reperfusion in the catheterization laboratory versus the operating room. Factors that predict wall motion recovery related to the onset of clinical symptoms, time to reperfusion, coronary anatomy, and collateral network were reviewed. Comparisons were made between patients with stable versus unstable hemodynamics and successful or unsuccessful reperfusion. Of the 738 patients, the initial attempt at reperfusion was made in the catheterization laboratory with success in 331. These patients all had primarily single-vessel disease. With multiple-vessel disease identified at catheterization, 189 patients were immediately treated by surgical reperfusion. This method also was used for an additional 72 patients in whom reperfusion could not be achieved in the catheterization laboratory. Of the entire group of 738 patients, 146 (20%) could not be reperfused. Overall mortality for the 592 patients reperfused was 4.9% compared with 17% for those who could not be reperfused. Time was critical for wall motion recovery if no collaterals were demonstrated on angiography. If collaterals were present, time to reperfusion was not critical. Wall motion recovered in 90% of the patients if the endocardial anatomy on the initial angiogram was smooth. However, if the endocardial anatomy looked mottled and irregular, less than 10% of patients had recovery of wall motion.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The case for early direct myocardial reperfusion

The treatment of choice, in Des Moines, Iowa for evolving myocardial infarction, is emergency reperfusion by medical or surgical means that are appropriate to the individual patient. If the patient exhibits clinical evidence of continuing evolution at any time distance from the onset of chest pain, cardiac catheterization is done immediately. With single vessel disease, streptokinase lysis is attempted and augmented when necessary by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. If multiple vessel disease is present, surgical intervention is carried out immediately. As mentioned above, time is not a predictor as to the final outcome whereas the endocardial ventricular architecture correlates well with wall motion recovery. This therapeutic protocol has resulted in an overall mortality rate of 3.5% in patients with evolving myocardial infarction. As mentioned above, all deaths occurred in the patients who were in cardiogenic shock before therapy, and all other 303 patients with evolving myocardial infarction recovered. We certainly do not discourage controlled clinical trials, utilizing these and other techniques, but do encourage you to adopt reperfusion as the primary therapy for evolving myocardial infarction for your patients.