Prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention centre in suspected acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital risk stratification and triage are currently not performed in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This may lead to prolonged time to revascularisation, increased duration of hospital admission and higher healthcare costs. The preHEART score (prehospital history, ECG, age, risk factors and point-of-care troponin score) can be used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with NSTE-ACS. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre, based on the preHEART score, on time to final invasive diagnostics or culprit revascularisation. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, two-cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. The first cohort is observational (standard care), while the second (interventional) cohort includes patients who are stratified for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI centre based on their preHEART score. Risk stratification and triage are performed by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint of the study is time from first medical contact until final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation. Secondary endpoints are time from first medical contact until intracoronary angiography (ICA), duration of hospital admission, number of invasive diagnostics, number of inter-hospital transfers and major adverse cardiac events at 7 and 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were included. In the interventional cohort (n=577), time between final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation (42 (17-101) hours vs 20 (5-44) hours, p<0.001) and length of hospital admission (3 (2-5) days vs 2 (1-4) days, p=0.007) were shorter than in the observational cohort (n=492). In patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation, healthcare costs were reduced in the interventional cohort (€5599 (2978-9625) vs €4899 (2278-5947), p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI centre, based on the preHEART score, reduces time from first medical contact to final invasive diagnostics and revascularisation, reduces duration of hospital admission and decreases healthcare costs in patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05243485.

Microvascular Resistance Reserve for Assessment of Coronary Microvascular Function: JACC Technology Corner.

The need for a quantitative and operator-independent assessment of coronary microvascular function is increasingly recognized. We propose the theoretical framework of microvascular resistance reserve (MRR) as an index specific for the microvasculature, independent of autoregulation and myocardial mass, and based on operator-independent measurements of absolute values of coronary flow and pressure. In its general form, MRR equals coronary flow reserve (CFR) divided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) corrected for driving pressures. In 30 arteries, pressure, temperature, and flow velocity measurements were obtained simultaneously at baseline (BL), during infusion of saline at 10 mL/min (rest) and 20 mL/min (hyperemia). A strong correlation was found between continuous thermodilution-derived MRR and Doppler MRR (r = 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.93; P < 0.001). MRR was independent from the epicardial resistance, the lower the FFR value, the greater the difference between MRR and CFR. Therefore, MRR is proposed as a specific, quantitative, and operator-independent metric to quantify coronary microvascular dysfunction.

Thermodilution-Based Invasive Assessment of Absolute Coronary Blood Flow and Microvascular Resistance: Quantification of Microvascular (Dys)Function?

During the last two decades, there has been a sharp increase in both interest and knowledge about the coronary microcirculation. Since these small vessels are not visible by the human eye, physiologic measurements should be used to characterize their function. The invasive methods presently used (coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR)) are operator-dependent and mandate the use of adenosine to induce hyperemia. In recent years, a new thermodilution-based method for measurement of absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance has been proposed and initial procedural problems have been overcome. Presently, the technique is easy to perform using the Rayflow infusion catheter and the Coroventis software. The method is accurate, reproducible, and completely operator-independent. This method has been validated noninvasively against the current golden standard for flow assessment: Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT). In addition, absolute flow and resistance measurements have proved to be safe, both periprocedurally and at long-term follow-up. With an increasing number of studies being performed, this method has great potential for better understanding and quantification of microvascular disease.

Effect of Using the HEART Score in Patients With Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. DESIGN: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01756846). SETTING: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. INTERVENTION: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. MEASUREMENTS: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. LIMITATION: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. CONCLUSION: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.