Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation alone for management of submassive pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Patients with submassive pulmonary embolism (PE) are vulnerable to sudden deterioration, recurrent PE, and progression to pulmonary hypertension and chronic right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Previous studies have suggested a clinical benefit of using ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USCDT) to invasively manage patients with submassive PE. However, there is sparse data comparing the clinical outcomes of these patients when treated with USCDT versus anticoagulation (AC) alone. We sought to compare the outcomes of USCDT versus AC alone in the management of submassive PE. METHODS: 192 consecutive patients who underwent USCDT for submassive PE between January 2013 and February 2019 were identified. ICD9/ICD10 codes were used to detect 2554 patients diagnosed with PE who did not undergo thrombolysis. Propensity matching identified 192 patients with acute PE treated with AC alone. Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Baseline demographics, laboratory values, and pulmonary embolism severity index scores were similar between the two cohorts. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in mean systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) in the USCDT group compared to the AC group (∆11 vs ∆3.9 mmHg, p < 0.001). There was significant improvement in proportion of RV dysfunction in all patients, but the difference was larger in the USCDT group (∆43.3% vs ∆17.3%, p < 0.001). Patients who underwent USCDT had lower 30-day (4.3% vs 10.5%, p = 0.03), 90-day (5.5% vs 12.4%, p = 0.03), and 1-year mortality (6.2% vs 14.2%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute submassive PE, USCDT was associated with improved 30-day, 90-day, and 1 year mortality as compared to AC alone. USCDT also improved RV function and reduced sPAP to a greater degree than AC alone. Further studies are needed to verify these results in both short- and long-term outcomes.

COVID-19 risk index (CRI): a simple and validated emergency department risk score that predicts mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Although certain risk factors have been associated with morbidity and mortality, validated emergency department (ED) derived risk prediction models specific to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. The objective of this study is to describe and externally validate the COVID-19 risk index (CRI). A large retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed to analyze consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Multivariate regression using clinical data elements from the ED was used to create the CRI. The results were validated with an external cohort of 1799 patients from the MI-COVID19 database. The primary outcome was the composite of the need for mechanical ventilation or inpatient mortality, and the secondary outcome was inpatient mortality. A total of 1020 patients were included in the derivation cohort. A total of 236 (23%) patients in the derivation cohort required mechanical ventilation or died. Variables independently associated with the primary outcome were age ≥ 65 years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, initial D-dimer > 1.1 µg/mL, platelet count < 150 K/µL, and severity of SpO2:FiO2 ratio. The derivation cohort had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83, and 0.74 in the external validation cohort Calibration shows close adherence between the observed and expected primary outcomes within the validation cohort. The CRI is a novel disease-specific tool that assesses the risk for mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Discrimination of the score may change given continuous updates in contemporary COVID-19 management and outcomes.

Prognostic Utility of a Modified HEART Score When Different Troponin Cut Points Are Used.

BACKGROUND: Although the recommended cut point for cardiac troponin (cTn) is the 99th percentile, many institutions use cut points that are multiples higher than the 99th percentile for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prior studies have shown that patients with a HEART score (HS) ≤ 3 and normal serial cTn values (modified HS) are at low risk for adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of the HS when various cTn cut points are used. METHODS: This was a substudy of High Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T assay for RAPID Rule-out of Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRAPID-AMI), a multicenter, international trial evaluating a rapid rule-out AMI study using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT). One-thousand two-hundred eighty-two patients were evaluated for AMI from 12 centers in Europe, United States, and Australia from 2011 to 2013. Blood samples of hs-cTnT were collected at presentation and 2 hours, and each patient had a HS calculated. The US Food and Drug Administration approved 99th percentile for hs-cTnT (19 ng/L) was used. RESULTS: There were 213 (17%) AMIs. Within 30 days, there were an additional 2 AMIs and 8 deaths. The adverse event rates at 30 days (death/AMI) for a HS ≤ 3 and nonelevated hs-cTnT over 2 hours using increasing hs-cTnT cut points ranged from 0.6% to 5.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Using the recommended 99th percentile cut point for hs-cTnT, the combination of a HS ≤ 3 with nonelevated hs-cTnT values over 2 hours identifies a low-risk cohort who can be considered for discharge from the emergency department without further testing. The prognostic utility of this strategy is greatly lessened as higher hs-cTnT cut points are used.

Suppression tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) turbidimetric immunoassay compared to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in predicting survival in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) is a powerful marker of prognosis and treatment response in heart failure (HF), however, it is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) which may be cumbersome and costly. A turbidimetric immunoassay (TIA) that can run on common chemistry analyzers could overcome this. We studied a novel TIA for ST2, comparing it to commercial ST2 (ELISA). METHODS: Patients age ≥ 18 years meeting Framingham definition for HF were enrolled in a prospective registry (Oct 2007 - March 2015) at Henry Ford Hospital and donated blood samples. Participants with reduced ejection fraction (<50%) and available plasma samples were included and valid ST2 measurements were obtained on the same sample using both TIA and ELISA (N = 721). The primary endpoint was all cause death. Correlation between the methods was quantified. The association with survival was tested using unadjusted and adjusted (for MAGGIC score and NTproBNP) Cox models and comparing the Area Under the Curve (AUC). RESULTS: The inter-assay Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.77. Nonparametric regression showed no significant proportional difference (slope = 0.97) and a very small systematic difference (3.2 ng/mL). In univariate analyses, both TIA and ELISA ST2 were significant associates of survival with similar effect sizes (HR 4.46 and 3.50, respectively, both p < 0.001). In models adjusted for MAGGIC score, both ST2 remained significant in Cox models and incrementally improved AUC vs. MAGGIC alone (MAGGIC AUC = 0.757; TIA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.786, p = 0.025; ELISA + MAGGIC AUC = 0.793, p = 0.033). In models with both MAGGIC and NTproBNP included, both ST2 still remained significant but did not improve AUC. CONCLUSIONS: A novel TIA method for ST2 quantification correlates highly with ELISA and offers similarly powerful risk-stratification.

Heart transplant recipients with confirmed 2019 novel coronavirus infection: The Detroit experience.

A chronic immunosuppressed state as in solid organ transplant recipients is a reported risk factor for the novel 2019 coronavirus infection. Patients with a history of orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) at a tertiary care transplant center in Detroit, Michigan were retrospectively reviewed from March until May 2020. Clinical parameters and outcomes of 5 OHT recipients and one combined heart-lung recipient with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were obtained. The cohort was predominately African American males with median age of 59 years (interquartile range, 48.25-73.25). All patients were classified as having mild-moderate disease; none required intubation or ICU admission with no deaths. The most common presenting symptoms were fever and shortness of breath 83% (n = 5), followed by cough and chills 67% (n = 4). All admitted patients (n = 5) received hydroxychloroquine and 3 received high-dose steroids. Antimetabolites were held for 2 patients (33.3%). The calcineurin inhibitor trough goal was decreased in only 1 patient; 3 other patients, without change in goal, required calcineurin inhibitor dosage reduction. Two patients requiring readmission presented 7 and 23 days after initial symptoms onset. In conclusion, our experience with OHT patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not have an elevated risk of severe infection. Impact of modifying immunosuppression remains unclear.

Cardiac Tamponade Secondary to COVID-19.

A 67-year-old woman presented with upper respiratory symptoms and was diagnosed with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). She was found to have a large hemorrhagic pericardial effusion with echocardiographic signs of tamponade and mild left ventricular impairment. Clinical course was complicated by development of takotsubo cardiomyopathy. She was treated with pericardiocentesis, colchicine, corticosteroids, and hydroxychloroquine, with improvement in symptoms. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Risk Prediction in Transition: MAGGIC Score Performance at Discharge and Incremental Utility of Natriuretic Peptides.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) remains a critical need. The Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score is a robust model derived from patients with ambulatory HF. Its validity at the time of discharge and the incremental value of natriuretic peptides (NPs) in this setting is unclear. METHODS: This was a single-center study examining a total of 4138 patients with HF from 2 groups; hospital discharge patients from administrative data (n = 2503, 60.5%) and a prospective registry of patients with ambulatory HF (n = 1635, 39.5%). The ambulatory registry patients underwent N-terminal pro-B-type NP (BNP) measurement at enrollment, and in the hospitalize discharge cohort clinical BNP levels were abstracted. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 1 year. MAGGIC score performance was compared between cohorts utilizing Cox regression and calibration plots. The incremental value of NPs was assessed using calculated area under the curve and net reclassification improvement (NRI). RESULTS: The hospitalized and ambulatory cohorts differed with respect to primary outcome (777 and 100 deaths, respectively), sex (52.1% vs 41.7% female) and race (35% vs 49.5% African American). The MAGGIC score showed poor discrimination of mortality risk in the hospital discharge (C statistic: 0.668, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.1 per point, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.652, 0.684) but fair discrimination in the ambulatory cohorts (C statistic: 0.784, HR: 1.16 per point, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.83), respectively, a difference that was statistically significant (P = .001 for C statistic, 0.002 for HR). Calibration assessment indicated that the slope and intercept (of MAGGIC-predicted to observed mortality) did not statistically differ from ideal in either cohort and did not differ between the cohorts (all P > .1). NP levels did not significantly improve prediction in the hospitalized cohort (P = .127) but did in the ambulatory cohort (C statistic: 0.784 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.83] vs 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.85]; P = .018) with a favorable NRI of 0.354 (95% CI: 0.202-0.469; P = .002). CONCLUSION: The MAGGIC score showed poor discrimination when used in patients with HF at hospital discharge, which was inferior to its performance in patients with ambulatory HF. Discrimination within the hospital discharge group was not improved by including hospital NP levels.

Symptoms Predictive of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Troponin Era: Analysis From the TRAPID-AMI Study.

The TRAPID-AMI (High Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T assay for rapid Rule-out of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study evaluated a rapid "rule-out" acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We evaluated what symptoms were associated with AMI as part of a substudy of TRAPID-AMI. There were 1282 patients evaluated from 12 centers in Europe, the United States of America, and Australia from 2011 to 2013. Multiple symptom variables were prospectively obtained and evaluated for association with the final diagnosis of AMI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done, and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. There were 213/1282 (17%) AMIs. Four independent predictors for the diagnosis of AMI were identified: radiation to right arm or shoulder [OR = 3.0; confidence interval (CI): 1.8-5.0], chest pressure (OR = 2.5; CI: 1.3-4.6), worsened by physical activity (OR = 1.7; CI: 1.2-2.5), and radiation to left arm or shoulder (OR = 1.7; CI: 1.1-2.4). In the entire group, 131 (10%) had radiation to right arm or shoulder, 897 (70%) had chest pressure, 385 (30%) worsened with physical activity, and 448 (35%) had radiation to left arm or shoulder. Duration of symptoms was not predictive of AMI. There were no symptoms predictive of non-AMI. Relationship between AMI size and symptoms was also studied. For 213 AMI patients, cardiac troponins I values were divided into 4 quartiles. Symptoms including pulling chest pain, supramammillary right location, and right arm/shoulder radiation were significantly more likely to occur in patients with larger AMIs. In a large multicenter trial, only 4 symptoms were associated with the diagnosis of AMI, and no symptoms that were associated with a non-AMI diagnosis.

Prognostic Utility of the HEART Score in the Observation Unit.

The evaluation of individuals with possible acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is time consuming and costly. Risk stratification early during an acute care encounter presents an opportunity for increased delivery of high-value care. We sought to evaluate if the HEART score could be used in the triage of low-risk versus high-risk patients directly home without cardiac testing. Retrospective review of 838 patients placed in an observation unit for evaluation of AMI was done at a single-center, tertiary care teaching hospital. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event-death, AMI, or revascularization-at 30 days from the index encounter. Participants' average age was 60.1 years, 40% were male, and 67% were African American. Complete data were available for all 838 patients, including 30-day follow-up at study completion. The primary endpoint was met in 14 patients (1.7%), all of whom were in the high-risk group, with HEART score ≥4. Of the low-risk patients, 8 (2.8%) had a positive functional study, 5 underwent subsequent coronary angiography, with none (0%) found to have obstructive coronary disease. In conclusion, our results suggest that patients with a HEART score ≤3 being evaluated for chest pain are at extremely low risk for major adverse cardiac events and may be safely discharged without provocative testing. Positive cardiac testing in this population is more likely to represent a false-positive finding, resulting in unnecessary testing. These findings should be prospectively validated.