External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin. METHODS: Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05243485.

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.

Direct admission versus interhospital transfer for revascularisation in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The differences in outcomes and process parameters for NSTEMI patients who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre are largely unknown. HYPOTHESIS: There are differences in process indicators, but not for clinical outcomes, for NSTEMI who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre. METHODS: We aim to compare process indicators, costs and clinical outcomes of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients stratified by center of first presentation and revascularisation strategy. Hospital claim data from patients admitted with a NSTEMI between 2017 and 2019 were used for this study. Included patients were stratified by center of admission (intervention vs. general center) and subdivided by revascularisation strategy (PCI, CABG, or no revascularisation [noRevasc]). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included: duration between admission and diagnostic angiography and revascularisation, number of intracoronary procedures, clinical outcomes at 30 days (MACE: all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiac readmission) and total costs (accumulation of costs for hospital claims and interhospital ambulance rides). RESULTS: A total of 9641 NSTEMI events (9167 unique patients) were analyzed of which 5399 patients (56%) were admitted at an intervention center and 4242 patients to a general center. Duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter at direct presentation at an intervention centre for all study groups (5 days [2-11] vs. 7 days [4-12], p < 0.001). For PCI, direct presentation at an intervention center yielded shorter time to diagnostic angiography (1 day [0-2] vs. 1 day [1-2], p < 0.01) and revascularisation (1 day [0-3] vs. 4 days [1-7], p < 0.001) and less intracoronary procedures per patient (2 [1-2] vs. 2 [2-2], p < 0.001). For CABG, time to revascularisation was shorter (8 days [5-12] vs. 10 days [7-14], p < 0.001). Total costs were significantly lower in case of direct presentation in an intervention center for all treatment groups €10.211 (8750-18.192) versus €13.741 (11.588-19.381), p < 0.001) while MACE was similar 11.8% versus 12.4%, p = 0.344). CONCLUSION: NSTEMI patients who were directly presented to an intervention center account for shorter duration of hospitalization, less time to revascularisation, less interhospital transfers, less intracoronary procedures and lower costs compared to patients who present at a general center.

Prehospital triage of patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Rationale and design of the TRIAGE-ACS study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are currently transported and admitted to the nearest emergency department (ED) for risk stratification, diagnostic workup and treatment. Although such patients with NSTE-ACS can benefit from direct transfer to a PCI center for early invasive treatment, no reliable prehospital triage tools are available. Recently, the PreHEART score has been validated in the PreHEART study for prehospital triage of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. METHODS: The primary objective of the TRIAGE-ACS study, a prospective cohort study, is to determine whether prehospital triage using the PreHEART score can significantly reduce time from first medical contact to final diagnostics and revascularization in patients in need of coronary revascularization. The first cohort (control cohort; n = 500) is observatory and is used as a reference group for the second cohort. In the second cohort (interventional cohort; n = 500) patients are stratified in the ambulance for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI center, based on the PreHEART score. These two cohorts will be compared with each other. In total, 1000 patients will be included. Follow-up for endpoints will be performed by reviewing the medical record after 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years. CONCLUSION: The TRIAGE-ACS study is the first prospective study to investigate the impact of prehospital triage using the PreHEART score on time to final invasive diagnostics and treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS in need of revascularization by transferring high risk patients directly to a PCI center and patients at a low risk of having an NSTE-ACS to a non-PCI center. Such triage strategy could potentially result in optimization of regional care for all ACS patients.

Different classifications of nocturnal blood pressure dipping affect the prevalence of dippers and nondippers and the relation with target-organ damage.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed how different definitions of the awake and asleep periods and use of various blood pressure (BP) indices affect the extent of the nocturnal BP dip, the prevalence of dippers and nondippers, their respective reproducibilities and the relation of nondipping with target-organ damage. METHODS: We performed 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring twice and determined the left ventricular mass index and urinary albumin excretion as indices of target-organ damage in 150 hypertensive patients (off-medication). Awake and asleep periods were assessed using fixed and diary time methods, covering all readings available (wide) or excluding morning and evening transition hours (narrow). Nondipping (BP dip < 10%) was established for systolic BP and diastolic BP, their combinations (and/or), and mean arterial pressure. RESULTS: The different awake-asleep definitions caused significant variation in both the extent of the BP dip and the number of dippers and nondippers in comparison with the wide diary definition (i.e. use of actual awake and sleep periods). The prevalences of dippers and nondippers also varied significantly with the BP index. Reproducibility analyses of the BP dip and the dipping status yielded repeatability coefficients (expressed as percentages of nearly maximal variation) between 42.39 and 48.71%, and kappa values between 0.323 and 0.459, respectively. Some classifications, but not all, discriminated significantly between consistent dippers and nondippers in terms of left ventricular mass index or urinary albumin excretion. CONCLUSIONS: Use of different definitions of awake-asleep and BP indices affects significantly the classification of nocturnal BP dipping and its relation with hypertensive target-organ damage.

Agatston score of the descending aorta is independently associated with coronary events in a low-risk population.

Objectives: A standard coronary artery calcium scan includes part of the aorta. This additional information is often not included in routine analyses. We aimed to determine the feasibility of assessing the Agatston score of the descending aorta calcification (DAC) on standard coronary calcium scans and the association of this score with coronary events in a low-risk study population. Methods: Between January 2008 and March 2011, 390 consecutive patients who were referred for cardiac CT as part of work-up for pulmonary vein isolation (n=115) or assessment of presence of coronary artery disease (n=275) were included. At baseline, all patients were free of a history of cardiovascular disease. Two independent observers determined the Agatston score of the ascending aorta and descending aorta. Results: A total of 16 patients (4.1%) developed coronary events (acute coronary syndrome (n=6) and symptomatic significant coronary artery disease requiring treatment (n=10)) during a follow-up of 67±12 months, with more events in patients with calcifications in the descending aorta than in those without (8.4% vs 3.7 %; p=0.08). Multivariable Cox regression, corrected for Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and coronary Agatston score (CAC), revealed that DAC was independently associated with coronary events (per 100 units; HR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; p=0.001). DAC furthermore increased the identification of patients that will experience a coronary event (area under the curve: 0.68 for FRS only, 0.75 for FRS+CAC and 0.78 for FRS+CAC+DAC). Conclusions: The Agatston score of the descending aorta could be included in the standard analysis of cardiac CT scans of low-risk patients since it holds valuable information for the prediction of coronary events.

Patients originally diagnosed with idiopathic atrial fibrillation more often suffer from insidious coronary artery disease compared to healthy sinus rhythm controls.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic atrial fibrillation (AF) refers to a clinically lacking cardiovascular or pulmonary disease generating the pathophysiologic substrate for the arrhythmia. However, because idiopathic AF is associated with an increased event rate, it could be a harbinger of as-yet undetected underlying heart disease. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients diagnosed with idiopathic paroxysmal AF. METHODS: Of the 3243 patients who underwent cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in our center between January 2008 and March 2011, we identified a total of 115 consecutive idiopathic paroxysmal AF patients who underwent CTA before electrophysiologic ablation. Patients were compared with 275 age-, sex-, and PROCAM risk score-matched healthy controls in permanent sinus rhythm. All patients were free of hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure, previous known coronary artery and peripheral vascular disease, previous stroke, thyroid, pulmonary, and renal disease, and structural abnormalities on echocardiography. RESULTS: Controls more often showed a family history of CAD (38% vs 15%, P <.001), had a higher prevalence of smoking (25% vs 14%, P = .021), higher fasting blood glucose levels (5.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L vs 5.4 ± 0.6 mmol/L, P = .025), and smaller atrial diameters (37 ± 4 mm vs 40 ± 5 mm, P <.001) compared to AF patients. Notwithstanding the above, idiopathic AF patients significantly more often suffered from subclinical CAD compared to controls (49% vs 34%, P = .008). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that beside (as expected) age and gender, a history of AF and left atrial diameter were significant predictors of underlying CAD. CONCLUSION: Half of patients originally diagnosed with idiopathic paroxysmal AF show concealed underlying CAD. The detection and treatment of CAD at an early stage could improve the prognosis of these patients.