Assessment of the impact of different N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide thresholds on echocardiography services.

AIMS: N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is considered a rule-out test for patients with suspected heart failure. The NT-proBNP thresholds recommended for echocardiography by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are based on small studies of patients with heart failure and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The purpose of our study was to examine the relation between NT-proBNP and LVSD in a larger number of patients with symptoms suggestive of heart failure in a non-acute setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: One thousand patients with suspected chronic heart failure underwent echocardiography within 6 months of NT-proBNP measurement. NT-proBNP was the strongest predictor of any form of LVSD in univariate (OR 2.52, 95% CI 2.19-2.91, P value < 0.001) and multivariate (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.32-3.21, P value < 0.001) analyses. Negative predictive value (NPV) of NT-proBNP for impaired LV systolic function (ejection fraction 35-49%) was 98% at 125 pg/mL (the ESC threshold), 93% at 400 pg/mL (the NICE threshold), 91% at 1000 pg/mL and 90% at 2000 pg/mL. Corresponding values for severe LVSD (ejection fraction <35%) were 100%, 99%, 98% and 96%. The number of patients per 1000 with suspected chronic heart failure requiring echocardiography at each threshold was 851, 543, 324, and 182, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide thresholds recommended by ESC and NICE result in large numbers of patients with suspected chronic heart failure being referred for echocardiography. Raising the NT-proBNP threshold would improve access to echocardiography with minimal negative impact on the clinical performance of this cardiac biomarker.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiology services.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in prioritisation of National Health Service (NHS) resources to cope with the surge in infected patients. However, there have been no studies in the UK looking at the effect of the COVID-19 work pattern on the provision of cardiology services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on cardiology services and clinical activity. METHODS: We analysed key performance indicators in cardiology services in a single centre in the UK in the periods prior to and during lockdown to assess reduction or changes in service provision. RESULTS: There has been a greater than 50% drop in the number of patients presenting to cardiology and those diagnosed with myocardial infarction. All areas of cardiology service provision sustained significant reductions, which included outpatient clinics, investigations, procedures and cardiology community services such as heart failure and cardiac rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: As ischaemic heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death nationally and globally, cardiology services need to prepare for a significant increase in workload in the recovery phase and develop new pathways to urgently help those adversely affected by the changes in service provision.

Complications and prognosis of patients undergoing apical or septal right ventricular pacing.

Objectives: Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial. Large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical and septal right ventricular lead placement have been lacking. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker insertion for high-degree atrioventricular block at Edinburgh Heart Centre were investigated. Periprocedural 30-day complications were defined (infection/bleeding/pneumothorax/tamponade/lead displacement). Long-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the General Register of Scotland and electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event, as per the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure trial. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, new heart failure and their composite. Results: 820 patients were included, 204 (25%) paced from the septum and 616 (75%) from the apex. All baseline variables were similar with the exception of age (septal: 73.2±1.1 vs apical: 76.9±0.5 years, p<0.001). Procedure duration (58±23 vs 55±25 min, p=0.3), complication rates (18 (8.8) vs 46 (7.5)%, p=0.5) and postimplant QRS duration (152 (23) vs 154 (27) ms, p=0.4) were similar. After 1041 days (IQR 564), 278 patients met the primary endpoint, with no difference between the septal and apical groups in unadjusted (HR 0.86 (95% CIs 0.64 to 1.15)) or multivariable analysis correcting for age, gender and comorbidity (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.30)). Similarly, no differences were observed in the secondary endpoints. Conclusions: This large real-world cohort of patients undergoing right ventricular lead placement in the septum or apex demonstrated no difference in procedural complications nor long-term clinical outcomes. Both pacing strategies appear reasonable in routine practice.

Sensitive troponin assay and the classification of myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Lowering the diagnostic threshold for troponin is controversial because it may disproportionately increase the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients without acute coronary syndrome. We assessed the impact of lowering the diagnostic threshold of troponin on the incidence, management, and outcome of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury. METHODS: Consecutive patients with elevated plasma troponin I concentrations (≥50 ng/L; n = 2929) were classified with type 1 (50%) myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury (48%), and type 3 to 5 myocardial infarction (2%) before and after lowering the diagnostic threshold from 200 to 50 ng/L with a sensitive assay. Event-free survival from death and recurrent myocardial infarction was recorded at 1 year. RESULTS: Lowering the threshold increased the diagnosis of type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury more than type 1 myocardial infarction (672 vs 257 additional patients, P < .001). Patients with myocardial injury or type 2 myocardial infarction were at higher risk of death compared with those with type 1 myocardial infarction (37% vs 16%; relative risk [RR], 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98-2.69) but had fewer recurrent myocardial infarctions (4% vs 12%; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.26-0.49). In patients with troponin concentrations 50 to 199 ng/L, lowering the diagnostic threshold was associated with increased healthcare resource use (P < .05) that reduced recurrent myocardial infarction and death for patients with type 1 myocardial infarction (31% vs 20%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.99), but not type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury (36% vs 33%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of a sensitive troponin assay, the incidence of type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury disproportionately increased and is now as frequent as type 1 myocardial infarction. Outcomes of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction or myocardial injury are poor and do not seem to be modifiable after reclassification despite substantial increases in healthcare resource use.