Pre-hospital versus hospital acquired HEART score for risk classification of suspected non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.
院前与院内获得性心脏评分对可疑非 ST 段抬高急性冠脉综合征风险分类的比较。
- 作者列表："van Dongen DN","Badings EA","Fokkert MJ","Tolsma RT","van der Sluis A","Slingerland RJ","Van't Hof AW","Ottervanger JP
INTRODUCTION:Although increasing evidence shows that in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) both hospital and pre-hospital acquired HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) scores have strong predictive value, pre-hospital and hospital acquired HEART scores have never been compared directly. METHODS:In patients with suspected NSTE-ACS, the HEART score was independently prospectively assessed in the pre-hospital setting by ambulance paramedics and in the hospital by physicians. The hospital HEART score was considered the gold standard. Low-risk (HEART score ≤3) was considered a negative test. Endpoint was occurrence of major adverse events within 45 days. RESULTS:A total of 699 patients were included in the analyses. In 516 (74%) patients pre-hospital and hospital risk classification was similar, in 50 (7%) pre-hospital risk classification was false negative (45 days mortality 0%) and in 133 (19%) false positive (45 days mortality 1.5%). False negative risk classifications were caused by differences in history (100%), risk factor assessment (66%) and troponin (18%) and were more common in older patients. Occurrence of major adverse events was comparable in pre-hospital and hospital low-risk patients (2.9% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.9). Incidence of major adverse events was 0% in the true negative group, 26% in the true positive group, 10% in the false negative group and 5% in the false positive group. Predictive value of both pre-hospital and hospital acquired HEART scores was high, although the 'area under the curve' of hospital acquired HEART score was higher (0.84 vs. 0.74, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:In approximately 25% of patients hospital and pre-hospital HEART score risk classifications disagree, mainly by risk overestimation in the pre-hospital group. Since disagreement is primarily caused by different scoring of history and risk factors, additional training may improve pre-hospital scoring.
导读: 尽管越来越多的证据表明，在疑似非 ST 段抬高急性冠脉综合征 (NSTE-ACS) 患者中，无论是住院还是院前获得性心脏 (病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素，肌钙蛋白) 评分有较强的预测价值，院前和院内获得性心脏评分从未直接比较。 方法: 在疑似 NSTE-ACS 患者中，由救护车护理人员在院前设置和由医生在医院独立前瞻性评估心脏评分。医院心脏评分被认为是金标准。低风险 (心脏评分 ≤ 3 分) 被认为是阴性测试。终点是 45 天内主要不良事件的发生。 结果: 共有 699 例患者纳入分析。516 例 (74%) 患者院前和院内风险分级相似，50 例 (7%) 院前风险分级为假阴性 (45 天死亡率 0%) 133 例 (19%) 假阳性 (45 天死亡率 1.5%)。假阴性风险分类是由病史 (100%) 、危险因素评估 (66%) 和肌钙蛋白 (18%) 的差异引起的，在老年患者中更常见。院前和院内低风险患者主要不良事件的发生情况相当 (2.9% vs. 2.7%，p = 0.9)。主要不良事件发生率真阴性组为 0%，真阳性组为 26%，假阴性组为 10%，假阳性组为 5%。院前和院内获得性心脏评分的预测值均较高，尽管院内获得性心脏评分的 “曲线下面积” 较高 (0.84 vs. 0.74，p <0.001)。 结论: 在大约 25% 的患者中，医院和院前心脏评分风险分类不同意，主要是院前组的风险高估。由于分歧主要是由历史和风险因素的不同评分引起的，额外的培训可能会提高院前评分。
METHODS:BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in combination with clopidogrel improve clinical outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, finding a balance that minimizes both thrombotic and bleeding risk remains fundamental. The efficacy and safety of GPI in addition to ticagrelor, a more potent P2Y12-inhibitor, have not been fully investigated. METHODS: 1,630 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were analyzed in this subanalysis of the ATLANTIC trial. Patients were divided in three groups: no GPI, GPI administration routinely before primary PCI, and GPI administration in bailout situations. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis at 30 days. The safety outcome was non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related PLATO major bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: Compared with no GPI (n = 930), routine GPI (n = 525) or bailout GPI (n = 175) was not associated with an improved primary efficacy outcome (4.2% no GPI vs. 4.0% routine GPI vs. 6.9% bailout GPI; p = 0.58). After multivariate analysis, the use of GPI in bailout situations was associated with a higher incidence of non-CABG-related bleeding compared with no GPI (odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-6.64; p = 0.03). However, routine GPI use compared with no GPI was not associated with a significant increase in bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.88-3.61; p = 0.92). CONCLUSION: Use of GPIs in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients was not associated with an improvement in 30-day ischemic outcome. A significant increase in 30-day non-CABG-related PLATO major bleeding was seen in patients who received GPIs in a bailout situation.
METHODS:OBJECTIVES:There are limited data on bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with positive biomarkers of myocardial necrosis (troponin and/or creatine kinase-myocardial band isoenzyme). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with positive biomarkers from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We compared the net adverse clinical events [composite ischemia - (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned ischemic revascularization) - or noncoronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)-related major bleeding] among patients with biomarker-positive NSTE-ACS in the ACUITY trial overall and by antithrombotic strategy. RESULTS:Among 13 819 patients with NSTE-ACS enrolled in ACUITY, 4728 patients presented with positive biomarkers and underwent an early invasive strategy. Of those, 1547 were randomized to heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), 1555 to bivalirudin plus GPI, and 1626 to bivalirudin monotherapy. Compared with biomarker-negative patients, biomarker-positive patients had higher 30-day rates of net adverse clinical events (14.0 vs. 12.4%; P = 0.04), all-cause death (1.3 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.001), cardiac death (1.1 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.005), and non-CABG-related major bleeding (6.5 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.03). At 30 days, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with significantly less non-CABG-related major bleeding (bivalirudin monotherapy 4.1% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 8.4% vs. heparin plus GPI 7.1%) with comparable rates of composite ischemia (bivalirudin monotherapy 9.2% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 9.9% vs. heparin plus GPI 8.4%). In a multivariable model, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in non-CABG-related major bleeding but was not associated with an increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization or stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION:Compared with heparin plus GPI or bivalirudin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy provides similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding at 30 days among patients with NSTE-ACS and positive biomarkers.
METHODS:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) create a therapeutic dilemma as the risk of bleeding with triple antithrombotic therapy (TATT) must be balanced against the risk of ischemic events with double antithrombotic therapy (DATT). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DATT versus TATT in AF and CAD. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception to May 1, 2019. Studies comparing the safety and efficacy of DATT versus TATT in patients with AF and CAD were included. Among 9 studies, where 6,104 patients received DATT and 7,333 patients received TATT, there was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. There was a lower rate of major bleeding in DATT (risk ratio [RR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.75]; p <0.001). There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis (RR 1.52 [95% CI 0.97 to 2.38]; p = 0.07). However, subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant use demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in DATT (RR 1.66 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.73]; p = 0.05). In conclusion, DATT showed no difference in the outcomes of mortality, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis compared with TATT. DATT demonstrated a lower rate of major bleeding. DATT demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in the subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant which needs to be evaluated in further studies.