Utility of shock index in 24,636 patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Shock index is a bedside reflection of integrated response of the cardiovascular and nervous systems. We aimed to evaluate the utility of shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from seven Arabian Gulf registries; these ACS registries were carried out in seven countries (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen) between 2005 and 2017. A standard uniform coding strategy was used to recode each database using each registry protocol and clinical research form. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their initial shock index (low vs. high shock index). Optimal shock index cutoff was determined according to the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 24,636 ACS patients met the inclusion criteria with a mean age 57±13 years. Based on ROC analysis, the optimal shock index was 0.80 (83.5% had shock index <0.80 and 16.5% had shock index ≥0.80). In patients with high shock index, 55% had ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 45% had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients with high shock index were more likely to have diabetes mellitus, late presentation, door to electrocardiogram >10 min, symptom to Emergency Department > 3 h, anterior myocardial infarction, impaired left ventricular function, no reperfusion post-therapy, recurrent ischemia/myocardial infarction, tachyarrhythmia and stroke. However, high shock index was associated significantly with less chest pain, less thrombolytic therapy and less primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Shock index correlated significantly with pulse pressure (r= -0.52), mean arterial pressure (r= -0.48), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (r =0.41) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction simple risk index (r= -0.59). Shock index ≥0.80 predicted mortality in ACS with 49% sensitivity, 85% specificity, 97.6% negative predictive value and 0.6 negative likelihood ratio. Multivariate regression analysis showed that shock index was an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.40, p<0.001), heart failure (aOR 1.67, p<0.001) and cardiogenic shock (aOR 3.70, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although shock index is the least accurate of the ones tested, its simplicity may argue in favor of its use for early risk stratification in patients with ACS. The utility of shock index is equally good for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. High shock index identifies patients at increased risk of in-hospital mortality and urges physicians in the Emergency Department to use aggressive management.

Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptors Blockers on Mortality in Acute Heart Failure Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in the Middle East: Observations from the Gulf Acute Heart Failure Registry (Gulf CARE).

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs)/ Angiotensin Receptors Blockers (ARBs) on in-hospital, 3- and 12-month all-cause mortality in Acute Heart Failure (AHF) patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction in 7 countries of the Middle East. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data was analysed from 2,683 consecutive patients admitted with AHF and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) (<40%) from 47 hospitals from February to November 2012. Analyses were evaluated using univariate and multivariate statistics. The overall mean age of the cohort was 58±15, 72% (n=1,937) were males, 62% (n=1,651) had coronary artery disease, 57% (n=1,539) were hypertensives and 47% (n=1,268) had diabetes. Overall cumulative mortality at inhospital, 3- and 12-month follow-up was 5.8% (n=155), 12.6% (n=338) and 20.4% (n=548), respectively. Adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as medication in a multivariate logistic regression model, ACEIs were associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.48; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.25 to 0.94; p=0.031). At 3-month follow-up, both ACEIs (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.95; p=0.025) and ARBs (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.62; p<0.001) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Additionally, at 12-month follow-up, those prescribed ACEIs (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.027) and ARBs (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.71; p<0.001) were still associated with lower risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: ACEIs and ARBs treatments were associated with lower mortality risk during admission and up to 12-month of follow-up in Middle East AHF patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Systolic Blood Pressure on Admission and Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure: Observations From the Gulf Acute Heart Failure Registry.

We investigated the role of systolic blood pressure (SBP) in relation to in-hospital and postdischarge mortality in patients admitted with acute heart failure (AHF). The SBP of 4848 patients aged ≥18 years admitted with AHF was categorized into 5 groups: ≤90, 91 to 119, 120 to 139, 140 to 161, and >161 mm Hg. After adjusting for several confounders, multivariate logistic regression models showed that admission SBP was a significant predictor of mortality among both patients with preserved left ventricular function (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≥40%) and patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <40%). The adjusted odds ratios of in-hospital, 3-month, and 1-year mortality in the lowest SBP groups were 7.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.28-15.20; P < .001), 2.59 (95% CI: 1.35-4.96; P = .004), and 3.10 (95% CI: 2.04-4.72; P < .001) times the odds in the highest admission group (SBP > 161 mm Hg), respectively. We conclude that low admission SBP is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with AHF. The higher the admission SBP, the better the prognosis, regardless of age or LVEF.

Sex Differences in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Insights From the Heart Function Assessment Registry Trial in Saudi Arabia.

We assessed sex-specific differences in clinical features and outcomes of patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The Heart function Assessment Registry Trial in Saudi Arabia (HEARTS), a prospective registry, enrolled 2609 patients with AHF (34.2% women) between 2009 and 2010. Women were older and more likely to have risk factors for atherosclerosis, history of heart failure (HF), and rheumatic heart and valve disease. Ischemic heart disease was the prime cause for HF in men and women but more so in men (P < .001). Women had higher rates of hypertensive heart disease and primary valve disease (P < .001, for both comparisons). Men were more likely to have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. On discharge, a higher use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, and aldosterone inhibitors was observed in men (P < .001 for all comparisons). Apart from higher atrial fibrillation in women and higher ventricular arrhythmias in men, no differences were observed in hospital outcomes. The overall survival did not differ between men and women (hazard ratio: 1.0, 95% confidence interval: 0.8-1.2, P = .981). Men and women with AHF differ significantly in baseline clinical characteristics and management but not in adverse outcomes.

In-hospital adverse clinical outcomes of ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with renal dysfunction. Insights from the Saudi Project for Assessment of Coronary Events.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the prognostic value of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in Saudi patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and its impact on hospital therapies. METHODS: The STEMI patients with a baseline serum Creatinine enrolled in the SPACE (Saudi Project for Assessment of Coronary Events) registry were analyzed. This study was performed in several regions in Saudi Arabia between December 2005 to December 2007. Based on eGFR levels, patients were classified into: more than 90.1 ml/min (normal renal function), 90-60.1 (borderline/mildly impaired renal function), 60-30 (moderate renal dysfunction), and less than 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (severe renal dysfunction). RESULTS: Two thousand and fifty-eight patients qualified for this study. Of these, 1058 patients had renal dysfunction. Patients with renal dysfunction were older, and had a higher prevalence of risk factors for atherosclerosis. Patients with moderate or severe renal dysfunction were less likely to be treated with beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzymes inhibitors, statins, or reperfusion therapies. Significantly worse outcomes were seen with lower eGFR in a stepwise fashion. The adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital death in patients with eGFR less than 30 ml/min was 5.3 (95% CI, 1.15-25.51, p=0.0383). CONCLUSION: A low baseline eGFR in STEMI patients is an independent predictor of all major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and a marker for less aggressive in-hospital therapy.