Evaluation of the Marburg Heart Score and INTERCHEST score compared to current telephone triage for chest pain in out-of-hours primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Chest pain is a common and challenging symptom for telephone triage in urgent primary care. Existing chest-pain-specific risk scores originally developed for diagnostic purposes may outperform current telephone triage protocols. METHODS: This study involved a retrospective, observational cohort of consecutive patients evaluated for chest pain at a large-scale out-of-hours primary care facility in the Netherlands. We evaluated the performance of the Marburg Heart Score (MHS) and INTERCHEST score as stand-alone triage tools and compared them with the current decision support tool, the Netherlands Triage Standard (NTS). The outcomes of interest were: C­statistics, calibration and diagnostic accuracy for optimised thresholds with major events as the reference standard. Major events are a composite of all-cause mortality and both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular urgent underlying conditions occurring within 6 weeks of initial contact. RESULTS: We included 1433 patients, 57.6% women, with a median age of 55.0 years. Major events occurred in 16.4% (n = 235), of which acute coronary syndrome accounted for 6.8% (n = 98). For predicting major events, C­statistics for the MHS and INTERCHEST score were 0.74 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.77) and 0.76 (0.73-0.80), respectively. In comparison, the NTS had a C-statistic of 0.66 (0.62-0.69). All had appropriate calibration. Both scores (at threshold ≥ 2) reduced the number of referrals (with lower false-positive rates) and maintained equal safety compared with the NTS. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic risk stratification scores for chest pain may also improve telephone triage for major events in out-of-hours primary care, by reducing the number of unnecessary referrals without compromising triage safety. Further validation is warranted.

Prescription patterns of direct oral anticoagulants and concomitant use of interacting medications in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, temporal and regional trends in prescribing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in conjunction with interacting medications. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of pharmacy dispensing data in the Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics (SFK) registry on patients who have had a prescription for a DOAC filled at one of 831 randomly selected pharmacies in the Netherlands between Jan 2014-Jan 2019. RESULTS: We identified 99,211 patients who had a first DOAC prescription filled. Mean age was 71.6 ± 10.9 years, 58% were male. In 2014, 8,293 patients were treated with DOACs, in 2018, 35,415 were newly started on a DOAC. In 2018, the use of apixaban was most common (52%) in the Eastern region, whereas rivaroxaban was most frequently prescribed (32-48%) in the other regions. At time of first prescription, the vast majority (99.3%) used ≥ 1 concomitant interacting drug, and 3.2% used ≥ 3 interacting medications. Most common were digoxin (37.8%), atorvastatin (31.5%), verapamil (13.7%) and amiodarone (9.7%). While the number of interacting medications remained unchanged over time (median 1, interquartile range 1-1), there was a notable decrease in antiarrhythmic medications and an increase in non-cardiovascular interacting medications (e.g. dexamethasone from 0.9% to 7.1%, antiepileptic drugs from 2.5% to 3.8%, and haloperidol from 0.5% to 2.2% in 2014 and 2018, respectively). CONCLUSION: DOAC use has quadrupled in Dutch clinical practice over the 5­year period from 2014 to 2018. While the number of patients who take interacting medications remained stable, the profile of interacting medications has changed over time from cardiovascular to medications affecting other organ systems.

Performance of a simplified HEART score and HEART-GP score for evaluating chest pain in urgent primary care.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common symptom in urgent primary care. The distinction between urgent and non-urgent causes can be challenging. A modified version of the HEART score, in which troponin is omitted ('simplified HEART') or replaced by the so-called 'sense of alarm' (HEART-GP), may aid in risk stratification. METHOD: This study involved a retrospective, observational cohort of consecutive patients evaluated for chest pain at a large-scale, out-of-hours, regional primary care facility in the Netherlands, with 6­week follow-up for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The outcome of interest is diagnostic accuracy, including positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: We included 664 patients; MACEs occurred in 4.8% (n = 32). For  simplified HEART and HEART-GP, we found C­statistics of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.91) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.95), respectively. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was found for a simplified HEART score ≥2 (PPV 9%, NPV 99.7%), HEART-GP score ≥3 (PPV 11%, NPV 99.7%) and HEART-GP score ≥4 (PPV 16%, NPV 99.4%). Physicians referred 157 patients (23.6%) and missed 6 MACEs. A simplified HEART score ≥2 would have picked up 5 cases, at the expense of 332 referrals (50.0%, p < 0.001). A HEART-GP score of ≥3 and ≥4 would have detected 5 and 3 MACEs and led to 293 (44.1%, p < 0.001) and 186 (28.0%, p = 0.18) referrals, respectively. CONCLUSION: HEART-score modifications including the physicians' 'sense of alarm' may be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain in primary care in the absence of routine access to troponin assays. Further validation is warranted.

Prescription patterns of lipid lowering agents among older patients in general practice: an analysis from a national database in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Dutch cardiovascular risk management guidelines state almost every older adult (≥70 years) is eligible for a lipid lowering drug (LLD). However, life expectancy, frailty or comorbidities may influence this treatment decision. OBJECTIVE: investigate how many older adults, according to age, frailty (Drubbel-frailty index) and comorbidities were prescribed LLDs. METHODS: data of 244,328 adults ≥70 years from electronic health records of 415 Dutch general practices from 2011-15 were used. Number of LLD prescriptions in patients with (n = 55,309) and without (n = 189,019) cardiovascular disease (CVD) was evaluated according to age, frailty and comorbidities. RESULTS: about 69% of adults ≥70 years with CVD and 36% without CVD were prescribed a LLD. LLD prescriptions decreased with age; with CVD: 78% aged 70-74 years and 29% aged ≥90 years were prescribed a LLD, without CVD: 37% aged 70-74 years and 12% aged ≥90 years. In patients with CVD and within each age group, percentage of LLD prescriptions was 20% point(pp) higher in frail compared with non-frail. In patients without CVD, percentage of LLD prescriptions in frail patients was 11pp higher in adults aged 70-74 years and 40pp higher in adults aged ≥90 years compared to non-frail. Similar trends were seen in the analyses with number of comorbidities. CONCLUSION: in an older population, LLD prescriptions decreased with age but-contrary to our expectations-LLD prescriptions increased with higher frailty levels.

[COVID-19: care at home or in hospital? Considerations in primary care]. / COVID-19: thuis behandelen of naar het ziekenhuis?

COVID-19 is a treacherous disease, in which infected patients who appear to fare well can deteriorate rapidly, mostly due to respiratory failure. For general practitioners (and other first-line responders), a clinical evaluation at any given time merely provides a snapshot of the patient's condition. Therefore, frequent monitoring is warranted in at-risk patients. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach for monitoring, treatment and referral decisions. This is particularly the case in patients with advanced age. In this article, through the use of case examples, we aim to provide guidance when facing difficult management decisions in patients with (suspected) COVID-19.

Six-month clinical outcomes of the Tryton Side Branch Stent for the treatment of bifurcation lesions.

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of a bifurcation lesion (BL) is still associated with poorer clinical outcomes when compared with PCI of a non-BL. Therefore, several dedicated coronary bifurcation stents, such as the Tryton Side Branch Stent™ (Tryton Medical, Durham, NC, USA), were developed to improve clinical outcomes. We investigated 6-month clinical outcomes after placement of a Tryton stent in 91 patients treated for 93 BLs in our centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients who have undergone PCI of a BL treated with the Tryton stent in our centre were included. Outcomes were defined as any death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), any revascularisation, ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation (TVR), ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR), stent thrombosis, and target vessel failure (TVF; composite of cardiac death, MI, and ischaemia-driven TVR). Event rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Thirty-eight (42 %) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included (16 % ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI)). The 6-month event rates were 5.4 % (death), 4.3 % (cardiac death), 2.2 % (MI), 4.5 % (any revascularisation), 4.5 % (TVR), 4.5 % (TLR) and 9.7 % (TVF). CONCLUSION: In a real-world all-comers single-centre registry, the use of the Tryton Side Branch Stent was associated with acceptable procedural and promising clinical outcomes at 6 months, including ACS and STEMI patients.