Randomized Trial of Remote Assessment of Patients After an Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine programs can provide remote diagnostic information to aid clinical decisions that could optimize care and reduce unplanned readmissions post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES: TELE-ACS (Remote Acute Assessment of Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome) is a randomized controlled trial that aims to compare a telemedicine-based approach vs standard care in patients following ACS. METHODS: Patients were suitable for inclusion with at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor and presenting with ACS and were randomized (1:1) before discharge. The primary outcome was time to first readmission at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, major adverse cardiovascular events, and patient-reported symptoms. The primary analysis was performed according to intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomized from January 2022 to April 2023, with a 3.6% drop-out rate. The mean age was 58.1 years. There was a reduced rate of readmission over 6 months (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.13-0.44; P < 0.001) and ED attendance (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.40-0.89) in the telemedicine arm, and fewer unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% in telemedicine arm vs 9% in standard therapy arm). The occurrence of chest pain (9% vs 24%), breathlessness (21% vs 39%), and dizziness (6% vs 18%) at 6 months was lower in the telemedicine group. CONCLUSIONS: The TELE-ACS study has shown that a telemedicine-based approach for the management of patients following ACS was associated with a reduction in hospital readmission, ED visits, unplanned coronary revascularization, and patient-reported symptoms. (Telemedicine in High-Risk Cardiovascular Patients Post-ACS [TELE-ACS]; NCT05015634).

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Multi-Vessel Disease.

Coronary disease carries significant morbidity and mortality globally. The pandemic of obesity and diabetes combined with an aging population have resulted in a significant proportion of patients with multivessel coronary disease, the management of which poses significant challenges. A number of advancements in coronary intervention have emerged in the last few years allowing effective percutaneous management of complex coronary disease. In this review we examine the evidence base underpinning multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention across the spectrum of stable and acute coronary syndromes.

Comparison of NICE and ESC proposed strategies on new onset chest pain and the contemporary clinical utility of pretest probability risk score.

AIMS: Patients with de novo chest pain are usually investigated non-invasively. The new UK-National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend CT coronary angiography (CTCA) for all patients, while European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends functional tests. We sought to compare the clinical utility and perform a cost analysis of these recommendations in two UK centres with different primary investigative strategies. METHODSRESULTS: We compared two groups of patients, group A (n=667) and group B (n=654), with new onset chest pain in two neighbouring National Health Service hospitals, each primarily following either ESC (group A) or NICE (group B) guidance. We assessed the clinical utility of each strategy, including progression to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularisation. We present a retrospective cost analysis in the context of UK tariff for stress echo (£176), CTCA (£220) and ICA (£1001). Finally, we sought to identify predictors of revascularisation in the whole population.Baseline characteristics in both groups were similar. The progression to ICA was comparable (9.9% vs 12.0%, p=0.377), with similar requirement for revascularisation (4.0% vs 5.0%.; p=0.532). The average cost of investigations per investigated patient was lower in group A (£279.66 vs £325.77), saving £46.11 per patient. The ESC recommended risk score (RS) was found to be the only predictor of revascularisation (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both NICE and ESC-proposed strategies led to similar rates of ICA and need for revascularisation in discrete, but similar groups of patients. The SE-first approach had a lower overall cost by £46.11 per patient, and the ESC RS was the only variable correlated to revascularisation.