A Shifting Paradigm: The Role of Focused Cardiac Ultrasound in Bedside Patient Assessment.

Transthoracic echocardiography is the standard of care in anatomic and functional cardiovascular assessment; however, focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) performed with portable ultrasound equipment is increasingly being used as an adjunct to comprehensive history and physical examination. FoCUS assessments, unlike formal echocardiography, are intended to assist physicians in answering explicit clinical questions with a narrow differential diagnosis in real time. Over the past decade, a growing body of literature has repeatedly shown the value that FoCUS adds to clinical evaluation. Specifically, FoCUS improves point-of-care diagnostic accuracy, which in turn modifies treatment plans, decreases time to diagnosis, and reduces resource utilization. Although less robust, there is also evidence showing improvement in clinical outcomes. Based on this evidence, clinicians, training programs, and clinical societies have embraced FoCUS as a tool to complement bedside patient evaluation. Herein, we review the evidence for FoCUS in clinical practice, specifically evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, the impact on clinical decision-making, and the effect on clinical outcomes.

Safety and Efficacy of a Pharmacoinvasive Strategy in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Patient Population Study Comparing a Pharmacoinvasive Strategy With a Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategy Within a Regional System.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of a pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the context of a real-world system. BACKGROUND: Primary PCI continues to be the optimal reperfusion therapy; however, in areas where PCI centers are not readily available, a pharmacoinvasive strategy has been proposed. METHODS: The University of Ottawa Heart Institute regional STEMI system provides a primary PCI strategy for patients presenting within a 90-km radius from the PCI center, and a pharmacoinvasive strategy for patients outside this limit. We included all confirmed STEMI patients between April 2009 and May 2011. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of mortality, reinfarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: We identified 236 and 980 consecutive patients enrolled in pharmacoinvasive and primary PCI strategies, respectively. The median door-to-needle time was 31 min in the pharmacoinvasive group and the median door-to-balloon time was 95 min in the primary PCI group. In a multivariable model, there was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome (odds ratio: 1.54; p = 0.21); however, the propensity for more bleeding with a pharmacoinvasive strategy approached statistical significance (odds ratio: 2.02; p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of a STEMI system, a pharmacoinvasive strategy was associated with similar rates of the composite of mortality, reinfarction, or stroke as compared with a primary PCI strategy; however, there was a propensity for more bleeding with a pharmacoinvasive strategy.

Relationship between time to invasive assessment and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing an early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient-level analysis of the randomized early routine invasive clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the relationship between time to invasive assessment and outcomes among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients randomized to early angiography after fibrinolysis. BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of coronary angiography after fibrinolysis and the association with clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: Patient-level data from 6 randomized trials, with a median time to angiography <12 h after fibrinolysis, were pooled. The primary endpoint was 30-day death or reinfarction. The key secondary endpoint was in-hospital major bleeding. The relationship between fibrinolysis to angiography time and symptom onset to angiography time with outcomes was studied using 2- and 4-h intervals, respectively, and in multivariable models. RESULTS: Among 1,238 patients, the median fibrinolysis to angiography time was 165 min, and the median symptom onset to angiography time was 5.33 h. The primary and key secondary endpoints occurred in 5.7% and 4.7%, respectively. These main endpoints did not vary significantly with increasing fibrinolysis to angiography time. Early angiography (<2 h) after fibrinolysis was not associated with increased bleeding. Recurrent ischemia increased with increasing fibrinolysis to angiography time (3.7% to 7.9%, p for trend = 0.02). Thirty-day and 1-year death/reinfarction and 30-day recurrent ischemia increased significantly with increasing symptom onset to angiography time. Neither fibrinolysis to angiography time nor symptom onset to angiography time was an independent predictor of the primary endpoint. Only symptom onset to angiography time was an independent predictor of 1-year death/reinfarction (hazard ratio: 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.12, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Very early angiography (<2 h) after fibrinolysis was not associated with an increased risk of 30-day death/reinfarction or in-hospital major bleeding, and angiography within 4 h after fibrinolysis was associated with reduced 30-day recurrent ischemia. A shorter symptom onset to angiography time (<4 h) was associated with reduced 30-day and 1-year death/reinfarction and 30-day recurrent ischemia. In the current environment of regional networks of 24/7 primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers, the clinical implication of these findings is that patients initially treated with fibrinolysis should also be promptly transferred to the nearest PCI center for immediate angiography and PCI. (Early Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] After Fibrinolysis Versus Standard Therapy in ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] Patients; NCT01014182).

Bivalirudin for primary percutaneous coronary interventions: outcome assessment in the Ottawa STEMI registry.

BACKGROUND: Data from randomized trials has demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors plus heparin in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Real-world performance of bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention and the benefit of bivalirudin over heparin remain unknown in an era of routine dual antiplatelet therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: From July 2004 to December 2010, 2317 consecutive patients were indexed in the University of Ottawa Heart Institute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction registry. During this period 748 patients received bivalirudin, 699 patients received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and 676 patients received unfractionated heparin alone. The primary outcome was the rate of noncoronary artery bypass graft related thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding. Bivalirudin significantly reduced the primary outcome compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (2.7% versus 7.3%, adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI: 1.61-5.45, P<0.001) and the composite end point of death, stroke, reinfarction and major bleed (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.12-2.45, P=0.01). Compared with heparin alone, a reduction in major bleeds (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.60-2.44, P=0.59) or the composite end point (1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, P=0.83) with bivalirudin could not be demonstrated. Notably, major bleeding was associated with a 5-fold increase in the risk of mortality both in-hospital (3.5% versus 20.6%) and out to 180 days (5.6% versus 25.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin use compared with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors plus heparin as an antithrombotic strategy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention results in less major bleeding in contemporary practice. A benefit of bivalirudin over heparin could not be established with this registry and requires additional investigations to either confirm or refute.

The role of paramedics in a primary PCI program for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Time to reperfusion is linked to survival in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now considered the dominant strategy when it can be performed quickly. Because the number of cardiac catherization facilities is limited, health care workers have attempted to develop systems to ensure access to primary PCI for all patients with STEMI. The pre-hospital ECG has been shown to be a valuable tool to identify STEMI early and its use in the field has allowed paramedics to alert the medical team of an incoming patient with STEMI. Paramedics have come to play an important role in the early identification of patients with STEMI who make use of the emergency medical services. We review evidence that supports the role of the paramedics in patients presenting with STEMI.

Hospitalization costs of primary stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: cost analysis of the Canadian STAT Study.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that primary stenting was more effective than accelerated tPA in reducing the 6-month composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization for ischemia. This study looks at the hospitalization costs of primary stenting compared with accelerated tPA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Initial and 6-month hospitalization costs were computed for all patients randomly assigned to primary stenting (n=62) or accelerated tPA (n=61) in the Stenting versus Thrombolysis in Acute myocardial infarction Trial (STAT). Costs and resource usage were collected in detail for each patient. Physician fees were obtained directly from billings to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The length of initial hospitalization was 6.7+/-11.3 days in the stent group and 8.7+/-6.7 days in the tPA group (P<0.001). Total hospitalization days at 6 months were 8.3+/-13 days in the stent group and 12.1+/-14.0 days in the tPA group (P=0.001). Hospitalization costs were less in the stent group for the initial hospitalization, 6354 dollars +/-6382 versus 7893 dollars +/-4429 (P=0.001), and at 6 months, 7100 dollars +/-7111 versus 9559 dollars +/-6933 (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In centers in which facilities and experienced interventionists are available, primary stenting is less costly and more effective than thrombolysis.