Impact of admitting department on the management of acute coronary syndrome after an out of hospital cardiac arrest

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the influence of the hospital admitting department on adherence to the Guidelines of European Society of Cardiology for management of acute coronary syndromes in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of coronary etiology.

METHODS

We studied retrospective-prospective register of 102 consecutive patients with OHCA as a manifestation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients were admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) 52, general intensive care unit (GICU) 21, or GICU after initial Cath lab treatment (CAG-GICU) 29. This study compared the differences in the management of ACS in patients with OHCA of coronary etiology based on the admitting department in a tertiary care institution.

RESULTS

Twelve of the 21 (57.1%) patients admitted to the GICU were evaluated as having ACS on-site where they experienced OHCA. In the CCU group, 50 out of 52 (96.2%) and 28 of 29 (100%) patients in the CAG-GICU group (P<0.001). Coronary angiography was performed in 10 of 21 patients (48%) admitted to the GICU. It was performed in 49 out of 52 (94%) CCU patients and, in the CAG-GICU group, 28 out of 29 patients. The mean time to CAG differed significantly across groups (that is, GICU 200.7 min., CCU 71.2 min., and CAG-GICU 7.5 min. (P<0.001)). Aspirin was used in 48% of GICU, 96% of CCU, and 79% of CAG-GICU patients (P<0.001), while in the pre-hospital phase, aspirin was used in 9.5% of GICU, 71.2% of CCU, and 50% of CAG-GICU patients (P<0.001). P2Y12 inhibitor prescriptions were lower in patients admitted to the GICU (33% vs. 89% CCU and 57% CAG-GICU, P<0.001). The department's choice significantly affected the time to initiation of antithrombotics, which was the longest in the GICU.

CONCLUSION

The choice of admission department for patients with OHCA caused by ACS was found to affect the extent to which the recommended treatments were used. An examination of OHCA patients by a cardiologist upon admission to the hospital increased the likelihood of an early diagnosis of ACS as the cause of OHCA.

Stent Selection for Primary Angioplasty and Outcomes in the Era of Potent Antiplatelets. Data from the Multicenter Randomized Prague-18 Trial

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Clinical outcomes with drug-eluting stents, bare-metal stents, and bioresorbable scaffolds implanted in patients with AMI treated with primary PCI. Data from the Prague-18 trial

Background

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are the recommended choice of stents for primary PCI.

Purpose/Methods

The study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DESs and how they had influenced the patient prognosis. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Results

Of the PRAGUE 18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DESs, 296 (26.6%) with BMS, and 66 (5.9%) with BVS. Cardiogenic shock at presentation and the left main disease, especially as culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for BMS selection.

The incidence of the primary net-clinical EP (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, major bleeding, or revascularization) at 7 days was 2.6% vs. 6.5%, and 3.0% in the DESs, BMSs, and BVSs, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, P=0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) for BVS vs. DES, P=0.76). Patients with BMSs were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, P=0.045), and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; P=0.01); they also had higher composite of cardiac death, re-MI and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; P=0.047) at one year. BMSs were associated with significantly higher rate of primary EPs either treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Conclusion

Patients with the highest risk profile were preferably treated with BMS the contrary to BVS. BMSs were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events either treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Charles University Cardiovascular Research Program P-35 and Q-38, Charles University, Czech Republic

A contemporary approach to a young female patient with Loeys-Dietz syndrome and an uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: a case report

Background

Aortic dissection is a relatively uncommon, but often catastrophic disease that requires early and accurate diagnosis. It often presents in patients with congenital connective tissue disorders. The current aortic surgical techniques are related with serious early and late complications. This case report emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis of aortic root dilatation and the risk of dissection, especially in patients with congenital connective tissue disorders. We present an alternative, contemporary and multidisciplinary approach based on the present state of knowledge.

Case presentation

We present a rare case of a young female patient with Loeys-Dietz syndrome who was admitted with an uncomplicated aortic dissection (Stanford type B / DeBakey type III) and a dilated aortic root. After a period of close surveillance and extensive vascular imaging, thoracic endovascular aortic repair was deemed to be technically not possible. Medical treatment was optimized and our patient successfully underwent a personalised external aortic root support procedure (PEARS) as a contemporary alternative to existing aortic root surgical techniques.

Conclusions

This case highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approach, close follow-up and multimodality imaging. The decision to intervene in a chronic type B aortic dissection is still challenging and should be made in experienced centers by an interdisciplinary team. However, if an acute complication occurs, thoracic endovascular aortic repair TEVAR is the method of choice. In all cases optimal medical treatment is important. There is increasing evidence that personalized external aortic root support procedure PEARS is effective in stabilizing the aortic root and preventing its dilatation and dissection not only in patients with Marfan syndrome, but also in other cases of aortic root dilation of other etiologies. Moreover, many publications have reported the additional benefit of reduction or even eradication of aortic regurgitation by improving coaptation of the aortic valve leaflets in dilated aortas.

The Effect of Diabetes on Prognosis Following Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary Angioplasty and Potent Antiplatelet Therapy

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic significance of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with high risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in the era of potent antithrombotics. Methods: Data from 1230 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients enrolled in the PRAGUE-18 (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in pPCI) study were analyzed. Ischemic and bleeding event rates were calculated for patients with and without diabetes. The independent impact of diabetes on outcomes was evaluated after adjustment for outcome predictors. Results: The prevalence of DM was 20% (N = 250). Diabetics were older and more often female. They were more likely to have hypertension, hyperlipoproteinemia, multivessel coronary disease and left main disease, and be obese. The primary net-clinical endpoint (EP) containing death, spontaneous nonfatal MI, stroke, severe bleeding, and revascularization at day 7 occurred in 6.1% of patients with, and in 3.5% of patients without DM (HR 1.8; 95% CI 0.978–3.315; p = 0.055). At one year, the key secondary endpoint defined as cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, or stroke occurred in 8.8% with, and 5.5% without DM (HR 1.621; 95% CI 0.987–2.661; p = 0.054). In those with DM the risk of total one-year mortality (6.8% vs. 3.9% (HR 1.773; 95% CI 1.001–3.141; p = 0.047)) and the risk of nonfatal reinfarction (4.8% vs. 2.2% (HR 2.177; 95% CI 1.077–4.398; p = 0.026)) were significantly higher compared to in those without DM. There was no risk of major bleeding associated with DM (HR 0.861; 95% CI 0.554–1.339; p = 0.506). In the multivariate analysis, diabetes was independently associated with the one-year risk of reinfarction (HR 2.176; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.055–4.489; p = 0.035). Conclusion: Despite best practices STEMI treatment, diabetes is still associated with significantly worse prognoses, which highlights the importance of further improvements in the management of this high-risk population.

The experience with colorectal cancer screening in the Czech Republic: the detection at earlier stages and improved clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major health burden. Although screening is recommended and considered beneficial, further data on its positive effects are needed for worldwide implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

The aim of our national multicentre prospective observational study was to reveal and document clinicopathological differences in CRC diagnosed by screening and presented by disease symptoms as well as assess the efficiency of the screening programme in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

Between March 2013 and September 2015, a total of 265 patients were enrolled in 12 gastroenterology centres across the Czech Republic. Patients were divided into screening and symptomatic groups and compared for pathology status and clinical characteristics. Screening was defined as a primary screening colonoscopy or a colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test in an average-risk population.

RESULTS

The distribution of CRC stages was significantly (statistically and clinically) favourable in the screening group (predominance of stages 0, I and II) compared with the non-screening group (P < 0.001). The presence of distant and local metastases was significantly less frequent in the screening group than in the symptomatic group (P < 0.001). Patients in the screening group had a higher probability of radical surgery (R0) than those diagnosed based on symptoms (P < 0.001). Systemic palliative treatment was indicated in two patients in the screening group compared with 23 patients in the non-screening group (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

CRC diagnosed by screening disclosed less advanced clinicopathological characteristics and results in patients with a higher probability of radical surgery (R0) than diagnoses established based on symptoms, with subsequent management differing accordingly between both groups. These results advocate the implementation of a suitable worldwide screening programme.

P4786Dual antithrombotic therapy is similarly effective to triple therapy in preventing thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome

Background

Antithrombotic therapy is effective in preventing ischemic and thromboembolic events, however it simultaneously increases the risk of bleeding. The efforts thus focus on balancing the intensity of combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy.

Purpose

The study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of single (aspirin/clopidogrel) or dual (aspirin plus clopidogrel) antiplatelet therapy in combination with an oral anticoagulant in non-selected patient population with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

The analysis used data from National Registry of Reimbursed Health Services (NRRHS), which contains data of the entirety of health care paid from the public health insurance (almost 100% of healthcare in the Czech Republic) combined with the database of death records. Occurrence of an ACS, stroke, and bleeding requiring hospitalization within one year was compared in patients discharged on dual and triple antithrombotic therapy. Dual antithrombotic therapy consists of aspirin/clopidogrel plus an oral anticoagulant. Triple antithrombotic therapy was defined as combination of aspirin, clopidogrel and an oral anticoagulant.

Results

Over a four-year period (2012–2016) 104 000 patients with an ACS were hospitalized in the Czech Republic. AFib (any types) was reported in 12.4% (N=12 891) of them (21.2% in patients 75+ years old). +AFib (vs. −AFib) patients were a higher risk population with respect to the comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, stroke, heart failure) (p<0.05 for all comorbidities). Oral anticoagulant therapy was indicated in 25.3% of them. PCI was performed in 57.7% (−AFib) and 43.4% (+AFib) patients, respectively. Hospital mortality was significantly higher in +AFib patients (8.6% and 5.6%, OR (95% CI): 1.585 (1.481; 1.696), p<0.001).

We identified 1017 patients discharged on dual and 967 patients on triple antithrombotic therapy. Risk of recurrent ACS within one year with dual therapy was comparable to that with triple therapy (OR (95% CI): 1.219 (0.766; 1.940), p=0.403). The same was also observed for the risk of stroke (1.273 (0.648; 2.501), p=0.483).

After six months, persistence on dual antithrombotic therapy (33.4% patients) was higher than on triple therapy (10.3%, p<0.001). Within the first three months, de-escalation from triple antithrombotic therapy to dual antithrombotic therapy (in 212 patients) was accompanied by a significant increase of bleeding requiring hospitalization (0% on dual vs. 3.3% on triple therapy, p=0.048).

Conclusion

Protective effect of dual antithrombotic therapy on the occurence of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular event is comparable to that of the triple antithrombotic therapy in non-selected patients with an acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation. Moreover, long-term persistence on triple therapy is significantly lower due to bleeding risk.

P1727Prognosis predictors of patients with initial cardiogenic shock complicated acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty and intense antiplatelet therapy. PRAGUE-18 shock substudy

Background

Early reperfusion of the infarct related artery is the only treatment improving prognosis of patients with initial cardiogenic shock (CGS) complicated acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (Killip class IV at admission).

Purpose

The analysis focused on subgroup of patients with initial CGS randomized into the multicenter PRAGUE-18 study (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in primary PCI).

Methods

In the PRAGUE-18 study, patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=1230) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) were immediately randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with intended treatment duration of 12 months. 53.6% (n=659) switched to clopidogrel after discharge. Major ischemic and bleeding events were followed throughout the entire study period. Beside standard laboratory tests, efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel was measured by flow cytometric VASP evaluation in patients selected for a laboratory sub-study (n=218). Acute heart failure (KILLIP >1) was present in 11.8%, and 46 patients (3.7%) randomized to the study were in CGS.

Results

Patients with CGS were older [66.7 (48,3; 83,3) years] than those without CGS (KILLIP <4), and had the highest prevalence of bundle brunch block on the initial ECG (RBBB in 6.5%, LBBB in 8.7%, p=0.003 for difference in bundle brunch blocks). Time delay to hospital admission [1,7 (0,4; 36,0) hs] was significantly shorter than in patients KILLIP <4 [2,8 (0,8; 28,3hs; p=0.003]. Significantly more CGS patients had history of previous MI (19.6% vs 7.9%, p=0.011) and bypass graft surgery (6.5% vs 1.5%, p=0.041). 67.4% of CGS patients had multivessel disease and in 17.4% of these patients primary PCI was evaluated as suboptimal result or procedural failure (compared to 4.3% in patients without shock, p<0.001).

No difference was observed in clinical (primary and secondary endpoints, p=0.564) or laboratory efficacy between prasugrel and ticagrelor treated patients with CGS (p=0.800 for VASP index difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor 20±4 hs after loading doses). We did not find any difference in initial platelet activation (VASP index before P2Y12 inhibitors administration) in patients without acute heart failure (KILLIP I) [83.2 (54.1–94.2) %] and with KILLIP > I [82.5 (65.7–96.9), p=0.999], and this was also confirmed for the difference between KILLIP I and KILLIP IV patients (p=0.416).

Conclusion

Results of the present analysis and defined predictors of mortality showed that prognosis of patients with initial cardiogenic complicated AMI treated with pPCI cannot be influenced by more potent platelet inhibition (than in AMI patients without CGS). Furthermore, the concluding evidence underscored adherence to the current guidelines' recommendation of the earliest possible reperfusion of infarct related artery as well as administration of prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Antithrombotic therapy of patients with atrial fibrillation discharged after major non-cardiac surgery. 1-year follow-up. Sub-analysis of PRAGUE 14 study

BACKGROUND

The study investigated the discharge antithrombotic medication in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after major non-cardiac surgery and the impact on one-year outcomes.

METHODS

A subgroup of 366 patients (mean age 75.9±10.5 years, women 42.3%, acute surgery 42.9%) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery and having any form of AF (30.6% of the total population enrolled in the PRAGUE-14 study) was followed for 1 year.

RESULTS

Antithrombotics (interrupted due to surgery) were resumed until discharge in 51.8% of patients; less frequently in men (OR 0.6 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.35); p = 0.029), and in patients undergoing elective surgery (OR 0.6 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.33); p = 0.021). Dual antiplatelet therapy was resumed more often (91.7%) in comparison to aspirin monotherapy (57.3%; p = 0.047), and vitamin K antagonist (56.3%; p = 0.042). Patients with AF had significantly higher one-year mortality (22.1%) than patients without AF (14.1%, p = 0.001). The causes of death were: ischaemic events (32.6% of deaths), bleeding events (8.1%), others (N = 51; 59.3%, 20 of them died due to cancer). Non-reinstitution of aspirin until discharge was associated with higher one-year mortality (17.6% vs. 34.8%; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Preoperatively interrupted antithrombotics were re-administrated at discharge only in half of patients with AF, less likely in male patients and those undergoing elective surgery. The presence of AF was recognized as a predictor of one-year mortality, especially if aspirin therapy was not resumed until discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01897220.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study

BACKGROUND

No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel.

METHODS

This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017.

RESULTS

The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864).

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.

The impact of stage of chronic kidney disease on the outcomes of diabetics with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high risk of acute myocardial infarction and recurrent cardiovascular events. According to the previous studies, the combination of the two conditions may have a synergistic impact on prognosis. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of stage of CKD on the outcomes of patients with DM and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Study population consisted of 946 consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent PCI from January 2009 to December 2012 and were followed up until the end of 2013. The all-cause mortality during this period was evaluated in relation to DM and severe or moderate reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR categories G4-5, or G3; KDIGO classification). Cox regression analysis adjusted for possible confounding factors was used in statistics.

RESULTS

Out of the study population (mean age 63 years, 69.6 % males), 217 (22.9 %) patients had DM. Of them, 10.6 % were in GFR category G4-5 and 32.7 % in G3. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients with DM were 34.8 % for G4-5, 18.3 % for G3, and 4.1 % in G1-2 groups. The all-cause mortality at the end of the follow-up period for diabetics within G4-5 was 2.27 -times higher compared to mortality of diabetics in G1-2 (p = 0.047, Cox regression analysis), and there was a trend toward higher mortality for G3 versus G1-2 (HR 1.64, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Severe chronic kidney disease (GFR category 4-5) was significantly associated with all-cause mortality of diabetics with STEMI treated with PCI; the association with severe CKD was stronger compared to moderate CKD.

Selection of P2Y12 antagonist, treatment initiation, and predictors of high on-treatment platelet reactivity in a "Real World" registry

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to compare characteristics related to selection of a P2Y₁₂ antagonist, investigate initiation of therapy with new-generation drugs, and identify predictors of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with stent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 589 patients in the LAPCOR (Laboratory AntiPlatelet efficacy and Clinical Outcome Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02264912) registry was analyzed. P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist efficacy was measured by VASP phosphorylation 24 ± 4 hours after a loading dose of clopidogrel (600 mg, N=407), prasugrel (60 mg, N=106), or ticagrelor (180 mg, N=76) and expressed by platelet reactivity index (PRI). HTPR was defined as PRI ≥50%. Patients treated with prasugrel were significantly younger and had significantly higher hemoglobin levels than those who received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, while chronic kidney disease was significantly more prevalent in the ticagrelor group. Almost all invasively managed patients given new-generation drugs received a loading dose after coronary angiography. Mean residual PRI and HTPR were significantly higher after clopidogrel (44.2 ± 23.1% and 42.2%, respectively) vs. prasugrel (17.7 ± 18.0% and 9.4%, respectively) or ticagrelor (18.8 ± 17.0% and 7.9%, respectively; all p<0.001). Among multiple variables tested, HTPR in patients treated with the new agents significantly related only to platelet count (p=0.014) and mean platelet volume (p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Safety is the most important aspect under consideration in choosing new agents for an individual patient. Other than platelet count and mean platelet volume, factors known as predictors of higher platelet reactivity, did not influence the efficacy of new-generation P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists.

Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry

Background

Traditionally, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been described as either STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) or non-STEMI myocardial infarction. This classification is historically related to the use of thrombolytic therapy, which is effective in STEMI. The current era of widespread use of coronary angiography (CAG), usually followed by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) puts this classification system into question.

Objectives

To compare the outcomes of patients with STEMI and ST-depression myocardial infarction (STDMI) who were treated with emergency PCI.

Methods

This multicentre registry enrolled a total of 6 602 consecutive patients with AMI. Patients were divided into the following subgroups: STEMI (n = 3446), STDMI (n = 907), left bundle branch block (LBBB) AMI (n = 241), right bundle branch block (RBBB) AMI (n = 338) and other electrocardiographic (ECG) AMI (n = 1670). Baseline and angiographic characteristics were studied, and revascularisation therapies and in-hospital mortality were analysed.

Results

Acute heart failure was present in 29.5% of the STDMI vs 27.4% of the STEMI patients (p < 0.001). STDMI patients had more extensive coronary atherosclerosis than patients with STEMI (three-vessel disease: 53.1 vs 30%, p < 0.001). The left main coronary artery was an infract-related artery (IRA) in 6.0% of STDMI vs 1.1% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). TIMI flow 0–1 was found in 35.0% of STDMI vs 66.0% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). Primary PCI was performed in 88.1% of STEMI (with a success rate of 90.8%) vs 61.8% of STDMI patients (with a success rate of 94.5%) (p = 0.012 for PCI success rates). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different (STDMI 6.3 vs STEMI 5.4%, p = 0.330).

Conclusion

These data suggest that similar strategies (emergency CAG with PCI whenever feasible) should be applied to both these types of AMI.

Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction with right bundle branch block: should new onset right bundle branch block be added to future guidelines as an indication for reperfusion therapy?

AIMS

The current guidelines recommend reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block (LBBB). Surprisingly, the right bundle branch block (RBBB) is not listed as an indication for reperfusion therapy. This study analysed patients with AMI presenting with RBBB [with or without left anterior hemiblock (LAH) or left posterior hemiblock (LPH)] and compared them with those presenting with LBBB or with other electrocardiographic (ECG) patterns. The aim was to describe angiographic patterns and primary angioplasty use in AMI patients with RBBB.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of 6742 patients with AMI admitted to eight participating hospitals was analysed. Baseline clinical characteristics, ECG patterns, coronary angiographic, and echocardiographic data were correlated with the reperfusion therapies used and with in-hospital outcomes. Right bundle branch block was present in 6.3% of AMI patients: 2.8% had RBBB alone, 3.2% had RBBB + LAH, and 0.3% had RBBB + LPH. TIMI flow 0 in the infarct-related artery was present in 51.7% of RBBB patients vs. 39.4% of LBBB patients (P = 0.023). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 80.1% of RBBB patients vs. 68.3% of LBBB patients (P< 0.001). In-hospital mortality of RBBB patients was similar to LBBB (14.3 vs. 13.1%, P = 0.661). Patients with new or presumably new blocks had the highest (LBBB 15.8% and RBBB 15.4%) incidence of cardiogenic shock from all ECG subgroups. Percutaneous coronary intervention was done more frequently (84.8%) in patients with new or presumably new RBBB when compared with other patients with blocks (old RBBB 66.0%, old LBBB 62.3%, new or presumably new LBBB 73.0%). In-hospital mortality was highest (18.8%) among patients presenting with new or presumably new RBBB, followed by new or presumably new LBBB (13.2%), old LBBB (10.1%), and old RBBB (6.4%). Among 35 patients with acute left main coronary artery occlusion, 26% presented with RBBB (mostly with LAH) on the admission ECG.

CONCLUSION

Acute myocardial infarction with RBBB is frequently caused by the complete occlusion of the infarct-related artery and is more frequently treated with primary PCI when compared with AMI + LBBB. In-hospital mortality of patients with AMI and RBBB is highest from all ECG presentations of AMI. Restoration of coronary flow by primary PCI may lead to resolution of the conduction delay on the discharge ECG. Right bundle branch block should strongly be considered for listing in future guidelines as a standard indication for reperfusion therapy, in the same way as LBBB.

Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in Europe: description of the current situation in 30 countries

Aims

Patient access to reperfusion therapy and the use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) or thrombolysis (TL) varies considerably between European countries. The aim of this study was to obtain a realistic contemporary picture of how patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are treated in different European countries.

Methods and results

The chairpersons of the national working groups/societies of interventional cardiology in European countries and selected experts known to be involved in the national registries joined the writing group upon invitation. Data were collected about the country and any existing national STEMI or PCI registries, about STEMI epidemiology, and treatment in each given country and about PCI and p-PCI centres and procedures in each country. Results from the national and/or regional registries in 30 countries were included in this analysis. The annual incidence of hospital admission for any acute myocardial infarction (AMI) varied between 90–312/100 thousand/year, the incidence of STEMI alone ranging from 44 to 142. Primary PCI was the dominant reperfusion strategy in 16 countries and TL in 8 countries. The use of a p-PCI strategy varied between 5 and 92% (of all STEMI patients) and the use of TL between 0 and 55%. Any reperfusion treatment (p-PCI or TL) was used in 37–93% of STEMI patients. Significantly less reperfusion therapy was used in those countries where TL was the dominant strategy. The number of p-PCI procedures per million per year varied among countries between 20 and 970. The mean population served by a single p-PCI centre varied between 0.3 and 7.4 million inhabitants. In those countries offering p-PCI services to the majority of their STEMI patients, this population varied between 0.3 and 1.1 million per centre. In-hospital mortality of all consecutive STEMI patients varied between 4.2 and 13.5%, for patients treated by TL between 3.5 and 14% and for patients treated by p-PCI between 2.7 and 8%. The time reported from symptom onset to the first medical contact (FMC) varied between 60 and 210 min, FMC-needle time for TL between 30 and 110 min, and FMC-balloon time for p-PCI between 60 and 177 min.

Conclusion

Most North, West, and Central European countries used p-PCI for the majority of their STEMI patients. The lack of organized p-PCI networks was associated with fewer patients overall receiving some form of reperfusion therapy.

How to set up an effective national primary angioplasty network: lessons learned from five European countries

AIMS

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are used to treat acute and chronic forms of coronary artery disease. While in chronic forms the main goal of PCI is to improve the quality of life, in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) timely PCI is a life-saving procedure - especially in the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to describe the experience of countries with successful nationwide implementation of PCI in STEMI, and to provide general recommendations for other countries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) recenty launched the Stent For Life Initiative (SFLI). The initial phase of this pan-European project was focused on the positive experience of five countries to provide the best practice examples. The Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark and Austria were visited and the logistics of ACS treatment was studied. Public campaigns improved patient access to acute PCI. Regional networks involving emergency medical services (EMS), non-PCI hospitals and PCI centres are useful in providing access to acute PCI for most patients. Direct transfer from the first medical contact site to the cathlab is essential to minimise the time delays. Cathlab staff work is organised to provide acute PCI services 24 hours a day / seven days a week (24/7). Even in those regions where thrombolysis is still used due to long transfer distances to PCI, patients should still be transferred to a PCI centre (after thrombolysis). The highest risk non-ST elevation acute myocardial infarction patients should undergo emergency coronary angiography within two hours of hospital admission, i.e. similar to STEMI patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Three realistic goals for other countries were defined based on these experiences: 1) primary PCI should be used for >70% of all STEMI patients, 2) primary PCI rates should reach >600 per million inhabitants per year and 3) existing PCI centres should treat all their STEMI patients by primary PCI, i.e. should offer a 24/7 service.

Near‐normal coronary angiography in a patient, who is entirely asymptomatic 24 years after successful intracoronary thrombolysis for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Follow‐up of the historically first Czech intracoronary thrombolysis patient

Extremely long-term follow-up (24 years) of the historically first Czech myocardial infarction patient, treated by intracoronary thrombolysis, is presented. His current coronary angiography confirmed the finding 24 years ago, that this was a case of smoking-induced thrombosis in otherwise healthy coronary arteries. Experience with 76 similar cases among 4093 consecutive coronary angiograms (including 778 done acutely for STEMI) is briefly described.