Characterization and clinical course of patients not receiving aspirin for acute myocardial infarction: results from the MITRA and MIR studies

Antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapies in cardiogenic shock: a critical review of the published literature

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non-acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short-term or long-term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi-organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: First aid

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these first aid guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics include the first aid management of emergency medicine and trauma. For medical emergencies the following content is covered: recovery position, optimal positioning for shock, bronchodilator administration for asthma, recognition of stroke, early aspirin for chest pain, second dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis, management of hypoglycaemia, oral rehydration solutions for treating exertion-related dehydration, management of heat stroke by cooling, supplemental oxygen in acute stroke, and presyncope. For trauma related emergencies the following topics are covered: control of life-threatening bleeding, management of open chest wounds, cervical spine motion restriction and stabilisation, recognition of concussion, cooling of thermal burns, dental avulsion, compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries, straightening an angulated fracture, and eye injury from chemical exposure.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a joint position paper from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis, in association with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

Timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcome, including survival, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Achieving effective platelet inhibition and anticoagulation, with minimal risk, is particularly important in high-risk ACS patients, especially those with cardiogenic shock (CS) or those successfully resuscitated following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), who have a 30-50% risk of death or a recurrent ischaemic event over the subsequent 30 days. There are unique challenges to achieving effective and safe antithrombotic treatment in this cohort of patients that are not encountered in most other ACS patients. This position paper focuses on patients presenting with CS or immediately post-OHCA, of presumed ischaemic aetiology, and examines issues related to thrombosis and bleeding risk. Both the physical and pharmacological impacts of CS, namely impaired drug absorption, metabolism, altered distribution and/or excretion, associated multiorgan failure, co-morbidities and co-administered treatments such as opiates, targeted temperature management, renal replacement therapy and circulatory or left ventricular assist devices, can have major impact on the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs. Careful attention to the choice of antithrombotic agent(s), route of administration, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring and factors that affect drug efficacy and safety, may reduce the risk of sub- or supra-therapeutic dosing and associated adverse events. This paper provides expert opinion, based on best available evidence, and consensus statements on optimising antithrombotic therapy in these very high-risk patients, in whom minimising the risk of thrombosis and bleeding is critical to improving outcome.

Cost-effectiveness of optimal use of acute myocardial infarction treatments and impact on coronary heart disease mortality in China

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of the optimal use of hospital-based acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatments and their potential impact on coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in China is not well known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The effectiveness and costs of optimal use of hospital-based AMI treatments were estimated by the CHD Policy Model-China, a Markov-style computer simulation model. Changes in simulated AMI, CHD mortality, quality-adjusted life years, and total healthcare costs were the outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to assess projected cost-effectiveness. Optimal use of 4 oral drugs (aspirin, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in all eligible patients with AMI or unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was a highly cost-effective strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios approximately US $3100 or less). Optimal use of reperfusion therapies in eligible patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was moderately cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ≤$10,700). Optimal use of clopidogrel for all eligible patients with AMI or primary percutaneous coronary intervention among high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in tertiary hospitals alone was less cost effective. Use of all the selected hospital-based AMI treatment strategies together would be cost-effective and reduce the total CHD mortality rate in China by ≈9.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal use of most standard hospital-based AMI treatment strategies, especially combined strategies, would be cost effective in China. However, because so many AMI deaths occur outside of the hospital in China, the overall impact on preventing CHD deaths was projected to be modest.

Underutilization of acetylsalicylic acid for acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is a simple and cost-effective treatment for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Our objectives were to determine the frequency of ASA administration in the emergency department (ED) for patients with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina, and to identify patient characteristics associated with its administration.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review of patients discharged with a final diagnosis of ACS. Data on age, gender, mode of presentation, presence of chest pain at triage, administration of ASA or not in the ED, dosage and form of ASA received, timing of administration, presence of contraindications to ASA and use of regular ASA prior to ED presentation were recorded.

RESULTS

Six hundred and one charts were analyzed. Five hundred and fifty patients (91.5%) received ASA. Only 444 (73.9%) of these 550 patients were administered the ASA appropriately, according to the American Heart Association / American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines. Univariate analysis showed that chart notes "Transport by ambulance," "Allergy to ASA" and "Gastrointestinal bleed" were associated with a lower probability of the patient being administered ASA. If a patient was noted as taking ASA regularly, it increased the chance of this patient being administered ASA in the ED.

CONCLUSION

Although the study ED performed well, administering ASA to 91.5% of patients with ACS, only 73.9% of the patients who received ASA were administered the ASA appropriately, as recommended in the AHA/ACC guidelines. Educational strategies and system changes are necessary to increase the proportion of eligible ACS patients who receive appropriate ASA therapy.

Too little aspirin for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events: Results from the MITRA study

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of randomized trials has shown a significant reduction of mortality rate in patients receiving aspirin for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, a significant number of patients do not receive aspirin after AMI. Little is known about why aspirin is withheld or the long-term outcome of these patients today.

METHODS

The Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) registry is a multicenter registry of patients with AMI in Germany.

RESULTS

Of 4902 patients, 509 (10%) did not receive aspirin at the time of discharge from the hospital. The mean follow-up period for these patients was 17 months. Relative contraindications to aspirin were significantly associated with the withholding of aspirin (in-hospital bleeding: odds ratio [OR], 3.56; 95% CI, 1.86-6.80; history of peptic ulcer: OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.62-3.83). Absolute contraindications to aspirin were rare (2.2%). Other medications of proven benefit were also given less often in these patients (beta-blockers: 49.0% vs 61.9%, P <.001; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: 65.6% vs 70.2%, P =.06; statins: 12.2% vs 15.1%, P =.10). Patients who were not given aspirin were at high risk for vascular events. They were more likely to have a history of prior AMI (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79), were in critical clinical condition at admission more often (cardiogenic shock: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.09-3.56; overt heart failure: OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.05-2.3), and received acute revascularization less often (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67). The 1-year mortality was 2-times higher in patients who did not receive aspirin than in patients who did receive aspirin (16.5% vs 8.3%, P <.001). A significant association of withheld aspirin at discharge with a higher long-term mortality rate was confirmed with multivariate analysis (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15-2.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Ten percent of patients who sustained an AMI did not receive aspirin at the time of hospital discharge. Most of these patients were at high risk for cardiovascular events. Withheld aspirin was significantly associated with higher mortality rate during follow up.

Changes over time in the use of aspirin in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (1975 to 1997): a population-based perspective

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine 2 decade-long trends in the use of aspirin and associated outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND

Aspirin has been shown to be beneficial in the secondary prevention of AMI. However, little is known about changes over time in the use of aspirin in patients hospitalized with AMI and associated outcomes, particularly from a more generalizable population-based perspective.

METHODS

We examined trends in aspirin use and hospital and long-term outcomes in 9336 metropolitan Worcester, Mass, residents hospitalized with validated AMI in all area hospitals between 1975 and 1997.

RESULTS

Between 1975 and 1986, the hospital use of aspirin remained stable at approximately 20%. Use of aspirin increased markedly after this time from 49% in 1988 to 91% in 1997. Younger age, male sex, and a history of hypertension or stroke were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving aspirin. Patients with diabetes were less likely to receive aspirin than were patients without diabetes. Patients who received aspirin during hospitalization were more likely to receive beta-blockers and coronary interventions. Patients treated with aspirin were significantly less likely to have heart failure or cardiogenic shock develop or to die during hospitalization as compared with patients not treated with aspirin. Patients treated with aspirin had significantly higher survival rates over a 10-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The results of this community-wide study show that aspirin use in patients hospitalized with AMI has dramatically increased over time. Despite the beneficial effects associated with the use of aspirin, this therapy remains underused in several high-risk groups.