Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea in acute coronary syndrome: Routine screening in intensive coronary care units

INTRODUCTION

Increased evidence has shown that, despite the maximum care afforded to patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a residual risk of mortality remains, in which obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) appears to be a largely undiagnosed factor, particularly in the intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU). The purpose of this study is to determine whether the systematic screening for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is feasible and may be recommended. The aims of our study are to determine: (1) The estimated prevalence of OSA in patients admitted to the ICCU for ACS determined by a validated, user-friendly portable screening device; (2) The feasibility of the screening in this context; (3) To assess any negative impact of OSA on the severity of ACS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an observational study of 101 patients admitted to the ICCU for ACS showing no clinical evidence of heart failure (HF). In the 24-72hours following admission, they underwent an overnight sleep study using a 3-channel portable screening device with automatic analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-two out of the 101 patients proved positive to the screening test, and its feasibility was acceptable. OSA patients tended to have greater peak levels of hs-cTnT (3685±3576ng/L versus 2830±3333ng/L, P=0.08) than the non-OSA group. Compared with the non-OSA group, OSA patients presented more severe ACS, with a greater average GRACE score at admission of 112.2±26.3 (versus 98.4±19.2, P<0.001). In the OSA group, we found a statistically significant inverse correlation between the apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the linear regression analysis (r=-0.26; P=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic screening of patients in the ICCU is acceptable. OSA is frequently found in the acute phase of ischaemic heart disease and its presence is associated with more severe ACS and a poorer left ventricle systolic function.

[Are patients undergoing coronary angiography well-informed? Prospective evaluation of the effectiveness of written information]

INTRODUCTION

Prior information in the realization of an invasive intervention is crucial. Indeed, the patient has to know theoretically his disease, diagnostic and therapeutic means, but also the risks of the used technique. The habits of information vary many from one center to another, in spite of the proposition of an information leaflet written by the French Society of Cardiology. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of written information for patients hospitalized for coronary arteriography.

METHODS

Among patients hospitalized for realization of a programmed coronarography, a questionnaire was delivered before the information leaflet. The knowledge of the patients was so tested (27 items) before and after the reading of the information sheet (not limited time). The knowledge of the patients concerning coronarography indication, modalities, benefits, possible complications or still later possibilities was informed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included: all knew hospitalization reason, 86% were men, middle-aged 65 (IC 95% 60-70). Thirty-four percent (15-54) had studied in higher education. Ninety-seven percent had had information before. Only 56% (38-74) were informed about the mode of anesthesia, 36% (19-53) duration, 69% (53-86) the injection of iodine, 44% the risk of allergy, 53% the risk of bruise, 15% of the cardiac risks, 21% the renal risks. Seventy-one percent knew the diagnostic benefits, 44% the possible coronary angioplasty, 17% the eventuality of a bypass surgery. The delivery of the information leaflet did not modify the knowledge on most of these items, in particular the modalities and the profits. The risks were known significantly better for the allergy (P=0.019), the bruise (P=0.018), the cardiac risks (0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The population benefiting from a coronarography considers to be enough informed. However, knowledge of the modalities, profits and risks is very low. The delivery of the consensual leaflet does not allow improving the situation, except as far as concerned the complications. Better information is so indispensable, not only to obtain a better support of the patient in the treatment, but also to prevent the forensic implications. The improvement of the information must be multifactorial, but usually used means could be not sufficient.

Routinely-feasible multiple biomarkers score to predict prognosis after revascularized STEMI

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the long-term prognostic value of an easy-to-do multiple cardiac biomarkers score after a revascularized acute myocardial infarction (MI) in order to evaluate a multimarker approach to risk stratification, based on routine biomarkers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Blood samples from 138 patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction and successfully treated by primary coronary intervention (with TIMI 3 flow) were subsequently tested for creatinin level at admittance and then BNP, hsCRP, troponin I from Day 0 to day 7. The primary endpoint was a clinical evaluation comprising: new hospitalization for cardiac reasons, acute coronary events (acute coronary syndrome), and death.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up period of 11.01 months [9.44-12.59], 47 events were recorded. All the following markers were able to predict events: creatinemia on admission (p=0.0057), CRP on day 3 (p, troponin I on day 1 (p<0.001), BNP (p<0.0001) and biological multimarker score (p<0.0001). Clinical events were predicted with a hazard ratio (HR) of respectively 3.30 [2.88-12.30] in BNP Q4 as compared to the three lower quartiles (Q1-3), and 3.15 [2.75-21.00] for the Multimarker approach. The multimarker score was not significantly better than BNP on day 1 alone (p=0.77), troponin on day 1 alone (p=0.43), creatininemia on admission (p=0.19) or CRPhs on day 3 alone (p=0.054). Nevertheless, the Multimarker approach leads to the selection of a smaller, hence more manageable, high-risk population (13% versus 25%).

CONCLUSION

Among 138 subjects admitted for acute MI, and all successfully revascularized, a routinely multimarker approach with BNP, hsCRP, creatininemia, troponin I, is feasible. BNP is the most powerful marker, and this multimarker approach renders additional prognostic information helping to identify patients with high-risk to clinical events.

Can troponin elevation predict worse prognosis in patients with acute pericarditis?

INTRODUCTION

Myopericarditis are common in clinical practice: up to 15% of acute pericarditis have a significant myocardial involvement as assessed by biological markers. This prospective, bicentric study is aimed at describing a myopericarditis population, the clinical and MRI follow-up, and search for prognosis markers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2005 and September 2007, 103 patients hospitalised for acute pericarditis were prospectively enrolled. Physical examination, ECG, echocardiography, biological screening and cardiac MRI, in case of myopericarditis defined as acute pericarditis with troponin I elevation, were performed. Between December 2007 and July 2008, patients were contacted for new clinical and MRI evaluation.

RESULTS

Among the initial population of 103 patients admitted for acute pericarditis, 14 myopericarditis and 38 pericarditis were included. Compared with pericarditis, the myopericarditis group was associated with the following features: younger age (34.9 years [95% CI 28.3-41.2]; p=0.01), ST-segment elevation (nine patients between 14; p=0.03), higher troponin I (7.3 microg/L [95% CI 4.4-10.2]; p<10(-4)) and lower systemic inflammation (CRP peak 38.1mg/L [95% CI 7-69.2]; p=0.01). In the case of myopericarditis, infectious etiologies were predominant (12 patients among 14; p=0.002) and patients stayed longer in hospital (5.8 days [95% CI 4.7-6.8]; p=0.01). Follow-up showed no difference in terms of functional status (p=0.3) and global complications (p=0.9) between paired myopericarditis and pericarditis. Nevertheless, cardiac mortality was higher for myopericarditis (p=0.04). MRI follow-up showed myocardial sequelae without clinical impact.

CONCLUSION

Myopericarditis significantly distinguished from pericarditis. Three years follow-up showed no difference in terms of global complications but a higher cardiac mortality for myopericarditis. MRI myocardial lesions did not develop into symptomatic sequelae.

[Rhythm disorders and cardiac crypto-malformations]

Faced with a cardiac arrhythmia occuring in an apparently healthy heart, it is necessary to perform an anatomical investigation to detect any unsuspected anomalies. Congenital cardiopathy must certainly be excluded, as this is often responsible for rhythm disorders and/or cardiac conduction defects. Similarly, any acquired conditions, cardiomyopathy, or cardiac tumour must be sought. However, the possibility should always be considered of a minimal congenital malformation, which could be repsonsible for: any type of cardiac arrhythmia: rhythm disorder or conduction defect at the atrial, junctional or ventricular level, with a benign or serious prognosis. Unexpected therapeutic difficulties during radiofrequency ablation procedures or at implantation of pacemakers or defibrillators. Together with rhythm studies, the investigation of choice is high quality imaging, either the classic left or right angiography or the more modern cardiac CT or intracardiac mapping.

[Pharmacological treatment of atrial fibrillation]

Although anticoagulant treatment of atrial fibrillation is now well codified, the medical treatment of the fibrillation remains controversial. Two types of medication can be proposed: drugs to slow the rhythm (digitalis, betablockers and calcium inhibitors) and anti-arrhythmic mainly Class I or Class III drugs. Some doubt was raised in the 1990's about the pertinence of antiarrhythmic therapy and four recent trials (AFFIRM, RACE, PIAF and STAF) compared the two attitudes of "rhythm control" or "rate control" in atrial fibrillation. The four trials all showed that the results of these two options were equivalent with respect to the therapeutic objectives: reduction of mortality, thromboembolic or haemodynamic risk, and regression of symptoms and improvement of the quality of life. However, these trials have not closed the debate on these two therapeutic attitudes. In fact, analysis shows that the comparison was biased because anticoagulant treatment was inadequate and, though the treatment for rate control was appropriate, the antiarrhythmic treatment was far from being satisfactory and effective. Moreover, many patients in the "rhythm control" group were in atrial fibrillation whereas a certain number of patients in the "rate control" group were, in fact, in sinus rhythm throughout the study period. In addition, the comparison was incomplete because it did not include two other particularly common populations in clinical practice: multi-relapsing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in healthy hearts and atrial fibrillation associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction, patients with cardiac failure. Until the results of trials currently under way (AF-CHF) become available, the authors discuss the use of drugs for rate control and antiarrhythmic therapy in everyday practice.

[Arrhythmogenic effects of non cardiovascular drugs]

Among the unwanted effects of drugs, arrhythmogenic effects are particularly fearsome. Although rare they are serious, and responsible for syncope or sudden death, often linked with torsades de pointe on established long QT. For non cardiovascular drugs, detection is difficult because patients do not undergo systematic cardiological surveillance. Nevertheless understanding the risk, identification of predisposing factors, and consideration of the contra-indications are the rules of prescription, which are even more indispensable when the pathology being treated is benign. In effect, the implicated drugs are mainly anti-histamines, antibiotics, neuroleptics and antidepressants. The pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, and pharmacological surveillance services must recognise the greatest possible risk of a drug, thanks to pre-clinical data, experimental electrophysiology both in vivo (measurement of the QT interval) and in vitro (action potential duration) or even in the elementary channel (essentially analysis of the iKr current). Correlated with clinical data (QT changes, pharmacokinetic interactions), a risk/benefit profile can therefore be established, which is even more demanding when the pathology is benign or when alternative drugs are available.