2020 Update of the quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction: a position paper of the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care: the study group for quality indicators from the ACVC and the NSTE-ACS guideline group.

AIMS: Quality indicators (QIs) are tools to improve the delivery of evidence-base medicine. In 2017, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) developed a set of QIs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have been evaluated at national and international levels and across different populations. However, an update of these QIs is needed in light of the accumulated experience and the changes in the supporting evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC methodology for the QI development was used to update the 2017 ACVC QIs. We identified key domains of AMI care, conducted a literature review, developed a list of candidate QIs, and used a modified Delphi method to select the final set of indicators. The same seven domains of AMI care identified by the 2017 Study Group were retained for this update. For each domain, main and secondary QIs were developed reflecting the essential and complementary aspects of care, respectively. Overall, 26 QIs are proposed in this document, compared to 20 in the 2017 set. New QIs are proposed in this document (e.g. the centre use of high-sensitivity troponin), some were retained or modified (e.g. the in-hospital risk assessment), and others were retired in accordance with the changes in evidence [e.g. the proportion of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with fondaparinux] and the feasibility assessments (e.g. the proportion of patients with NSTEMI whom risk assessment is performed using the GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores). CONCLUSION: Updated QIs for the management of AMI were developed according to contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience. These QIs may be applied to evaluate and improve the quality of AMI care.

Endothelialitis plays a central role in the pathophysiology of severe COVID-19 and its cardiovascular complications.

This clinical review paper discusses the pathophysiology of the pulmonary and cardiovascular manifestations of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ensuing implications on acute cardiovascular care in patients presenting with a severe COVID-19 syndrome admitted to an intensive acute cardiac care unit. The high prevalence of old age, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, and ischaemic heart disease in patients who develop a severe to critical COVID-19 syndrome suggests shared pathophysiological mechanisms. Pre-existing endothelial dysfunction and an impaired innate immune response promote the development by the viral infection of an acute endothelialitis in the pulmonary microcirculation complicated by abnormal vasoconstrictor responses, luminal plugging by inflammatory cells, and intravascular thrombosis. This endothelialitis extends into the systemic circulation what may lead to acute myocardial injury, myocarditis, and thromboembolic complications both in the arterial and venous circulation.

Clinical Outcomes According to ECG Presentations in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock in the Culprit Lesion Only PCI vs Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of ECG presentations of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in cardiogenic shock is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: In myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, is there a difference in the outcomes and effect of revascularization strategies between non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and left bundle branch block myocardial infarction (LBBBMI) vs ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cardiogenic shock patients from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial with NSTEMI or LBBBMI were compared with STEMI patients for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. The interaction between ECG presentation and the effect of revascularization strategies on outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS: Of 665 cardiogenic shock patients analyzed, 55.9% demonstrated STEMI, 29.3% demonstrated NSTEMI, and 14.7% demonstrated LBBBMI. Patients differed in mean age (68.0 years in STEMI patients, 71.0 years in NSTEMI patients, and 73.5 years in LBBBMI patients; P = .015), cardiovascular risk factors, and angiographic severity. No difference was found in the 30-day risk of death between NSTEMI and STEMI patients (48.7% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR [aOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.66-1.67; P = .85), nor between LBBBMI and STEMI patients (59.2% vs 43.0%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.73-2.34; P = .36). Although the univariate risk of death by 1 year was higher in NSTEMI and LBBBMI patients compared with STEMI patients, ECG presentation was not an independent risk factor of mortality after adjustment (NSTEMI vs STEMI: 56.4% vs 46.8%; aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.76-1.92; P = .42; LBBBMI vs STEMI: 69.4% vs 46.8%; aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.89-2.84; P = .12). ECG presentation did not modify the effect of the revascularization strategy on 30-day and 1-year mortality (P = .91 and P = .97 for interaction). INTERPRETATION: In patients with cardiogenic shock, NSTEMI and LBBBMI presentations reflect higher-risk profiles than STEMI presentations, but are not independent risk factors of mortality. ECG presentations did not modify the treatment effect, supporting culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention as the preferred strategy across the AMI spectrum.

Donor B-type natriuretic peptide predicts early cardiac performance after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Decision processes in heart donation remain difficult and are often based on subjective evaluation. We measured B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in heart donors and analyzed its value as a discriminator for early post-transplant cardiac performance. METHODS: Blood samples were prospectively obtained in 94 brain-dead patients, among whom 56 were scheduled for heart donation. BNP values were not available prior to donor selection. BNP of heart donors was related to invasively measured cardiac output and hemodynamic parameters, early after transplantation. RESULTS: BNP, expressed as median (interquartile range), was 65 (32 to 149) pg/ml in brain-dead donors scheduled for heart donation. BNP was higher (287 pg/ml, range 65 to 457; p = 0.0001) in donors considered ineligible for heart donation. In 45 heart recipients, cardiac output (CO) of 5.6 (4.8 to 6.2) liters/min was measured at Day 12 (10-15). In the univariate analysis, recipient CO correlated significantly with donor BNP (r = -0.34, p = 0.025). Stepwise multiple regression, including donor variables such as body mass index, age, BNP, norepinephrine dose, gender and total ischemic time, identified donor BNP and age as the best independent predictors of CO in recipients (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005, respectively, R(2) of the model = 0.27). Donor BNP of >160 pg/ml had 89% accuracy to predict poor cardiac performance in the recipient (cardiac index <2.2 liters/min/m(2)). High donor BNP was independently correlated with a longer hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Donor BNP was found to be related to cardiac performance, early after cardiac transplantation. BNP measurement in heart donors could become a useful tool in the evaluation of donor hearts.