Validation of the CREST model & Comparison with SCAI Shock Classification for Prediction of Circulatory Death in Resuscitated Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVE: We validated the CREST model, a 5 variable score for stratifying risk of circulatory etiology death (CED) following out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and compared its discrimination with the SCAI shock classification. BACKGROUND: CED occurs in approximately a third of patients admitted after resuscitated OHCA. There is an urgent need for improved stratification of the OHCA patient on arrival to a cardiac arrest centre to improve patient selection for invasive interventions. METHODS: The CREST model and SCAI shock classification were applied to a dual-centre registry of 723 patients with cardiac etiology OHCA, both with and without ST-elevation myocardial infarction, between May 2012 to December 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day CED. RESULTS: Of 509 patients included (62.3 years, 75.4% male), 125 patients had CREST=0 (24.5%), 162 were CREST=1 (31.8%), 140 were CREST=2 (27.5%), 75 were CREST=3 (14.7%), 7 were CREST of 4 (1.4%) and no patients were CREST=5. CED was observed in 91 (17.9%) patients at 30 days [STEMI - 51/289 (17.6%); NSTEMI - 40/220 (18.2%)]. For the total population, and both NSTEMI & STEMI subpopulations, increasing CREST score was associated with increasing CED (all p<0.001). CREST score and SCAI classification had similar discrimination for the total population (AUC=0.72/calibration slope=0.95), NSTEMI cohort (AUC=0.75/calibration slope=0.940) and STEMI cohort (AUC=0.69 and calibration slope=0.925). AUC meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between the two classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The CREST model and SCAI shock classification have similar prediction for the development of CED after OHCA.

Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the 'target trial framework' as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it. METHODS: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. RESULTS: The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%). CONCLUSION: Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the 'target trial' framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

MIRACLE2 Score Compared With Downtime and Current Selection Criterion for Invasive Cardiovascular Therapies After OHCA.

BACKGROUND: The MIRACLE2 score is the only risk score that does not incorporate and can be used for selection of therapies after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the discrimination performance of the MIRACLE2 score, downtime, and current randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruitment criteria in predicting poor neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We used the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry), a retrospective cohort from 6 centers (May 2012-September 2022). The primary outcome was poor neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (cerebral performance category 3-5). RESULTS: A total of 1,259 patients (total downtime = 25 minutes; IQR: 15-36 minutes) were included in the study. Poor outcome occurred in 41.8% with downtime <30 minutes and in 79.3% for those with downtime >30 minutes. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, MIRACLE2 had a stronger association with outcome (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.98-2.51; P < 0.0001) than zero flow (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; P = 0.013), low flow (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09; P = 0.054), and total downtime (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.03; P = 0.52). MIRACLE2 had substantially superior discrimination for the primary endpoint (AUC: 0.877; 95% CI: 0.854-0.897) than zero flow (AUC: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.577-0.642), low flow (AUC: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.695-0.754), and total downtime (AUC: 0.732; 95% CI: 0.701-0.760). For those modeled for exclusion from study recruitment, the positive predictive value of MIRACLE2 ≥5 for poor outcome was significantly higher (0.92) than the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit lesion only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.80), EUROSHOCK (Testing the value of Novel Strategy and Its Cost Efficacy In Order to Improve the Poor Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.74) and ECLS-SHOCK (Extra-corporeal life support in Cardiogenic shock) criteria (0.81) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MIRACLE2 score has superior prediction of outcome after OHCA than downtime and higher discrimination of poor outcome than the current RCT recruitment criteria. The potential for the MIRACLE2 score to improve the selection of OHCA patients should be evaluated formally in future RCTs.

A machine learning algorithm to predict a culprit lesion after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a machine learning algorithm to predict the presence of a culprit lesion in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We used the King's Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry, a retrospective cohort of 398 patients admitted to King's College Hospital between May 2012 and December 2017. The primary outcome was the presence of a culprit coronary artery lesion, for which a gradient boosting model was optimized to predict. The algorithm was then validated in two independent European cohorts comprising 568 patients. RESULTS: A culprit lesion was observed in 209/309 (67.4%) patients receiving early coronary angiography in the development, and 199/293 (67.9%) in the Ljubljana and 102/132 (61.1%) in the Bristol validation cohorts, respectively. The algorithm, which is presented as a web application, incorporates nine variables including age, a localizing feature on electrocardiogram (ECG) (≥2 mm of ST change in contiguous leads), regional wall motion abnormality, history of vascular disease and initial shockable rhythm. This model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 in the development and 0.83/0.81 in the validation cohorts with good calibration and outperforms the current gold standard-ECG alone (AUC: 0.69/0.67/0/67). CONCLUSIONS: A novel simple machine learning-derived algorithm can be applied to patients with OHCA, to predict a culprit coronary artery disease lesion with high accuracy.

The effect of ethnicity and socioeconomic status on outcomes after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - Findings from a tertiary centre in South London.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, and ethnic variation in outcomes is recognised. We investigated ethnic and socioeconomic differences in arrest circumstances, rates of coronary artery disease, treatment, and outcomes in resuscitated OOHCA. Methods: Patients with resuscitated OOHCA of suspected cardiac aetiology were included in the King's Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry between 1-May-2012 and 31-December-2020. Results: Of 526 patients (median age 62.0 years, IQR 21.1, 74.1% male), 414 patients (78.7%) were White, 35 (6.7%) were Asian, and 77 (14.6%) were Black. Black patients had more co-existent hypertension (p = 0.007) and cardiomyopathy (p = 0.003), but less prior coronary revascularisation (p = 0.026) compared with White/Asian patients. There were no ethnic differences in location, witnesses, or bystander CPR, but Black patients had more non-shockable rhythms (p < 0.001). Black patients received less immediate coronary angiography (p < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (p < 0.001) but had lower rates of CAD (p = 0.004) than White/Asian patients. All-cause mortality at 12 months was highest amongst Black patients, followed by Asian and then White patients (57.1% vs 48.6% vs 41.3%, p = 0.032). In Black patients, excess mortality was driven by higher rates of multi-organ dysfunction but lower cardiac death than White/Asian patients, with cardiac death highest amongst Asian patients (p = 0.009). Socioeconomic status had no effect on mortality, and in a multivariable logistic regression, age, location, witnesses, and Black compared to White ethnicity were independent predictors of mortality, whilst social deprivation was not. Conclusion: In this single-centre study, Black patients had higher mortality after resuscitated OOHCA than White/Asian patients. This may be in part due to differing underlying aetiology rather than differences in arrest circumstances or social deprivation.

Contemporary percutaneous management of coronary calcification: current status and future directions.

Severe coronary artery calcification is one of the greatest challenges in attaining success in percutaneous coronary intervention, limiting acute and long-term results. In many cases, plaque preparation is a critical prerequisite for delivery of devices across calcific stenoses and also to achieve adequate luminal dimensions. Recent advances in intracoronary imaging and adjunctive technologies now allow the operator to select the most appropriate strategy in each individual case. In this review, we will revisit the distinct advantages of a complete assessment of coronary artery calcification with imaging and application of appropriate and contemporary plaque modification technologies in achieving durable results in this complex lesion subset.

Intravascular lithotripsy in the treatment of coronary artery calcification in a high-risk real world population.

BACKGROUND: The DISRUPT-CAD study series demonstrated feasibility and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in selected patients, but applicability across a broad range of clinical scenarios remains unclear. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of IVL in a high-risk real-world cohort, compared to a regulatory approval cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with IVL and percutaneous coronary intervention at our center from May 2016 to April 2020 were included. Comparison was made between those enrolled in the DISRUPT-CAD series of studies to those with calcified lesions but an exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Among 177 patients treated with IVL, 142 were excluded from regulatory trials due to acute coronary syndrome presentation (47.2%), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (22.5%), chronic renal failure (12.0%), or use of mechanical circulatory support (8.5%). This clinical cohort had a higher SYNTAX score (22.6 ± 12.1 vs. 17.4 ± 9.9, p = 0.019), and more treated ACC/AHA C lesions (56.3% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.042). Rates of device success (93.7% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.208), procedural success (96.5% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.585), and minimal lumen area gain (221.2 ± 93.7% vs. 198.6 ± 152.0%, p = 0.807) were similar in both groups. The DISRUPT-CAD cohort had no in-hospital mortality, 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), or 30-day target vessel revascularization (TVR). The clinical cohort had an in-hospital mortality of 4.2%, 30-day MACE of 7.8%, and 30-day TVR of 1.5%. There was no difference in 12-month TVR (2.9% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.825). Twelve-month MACE was higher in the clinical cohort (21.1% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IVL use remains associated with high clinical efficacy, procedural success, and low complication rates in a real-world population previously excluded from regulatory approving trials.

Cardiovascular Damage in COVID-19: What We Know Two Years Later.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly influenced cardiological clinical and basic research in the past two years. In the present review, we summarize the current knowledge on myocardial involvement in COVID-19, providing an overview on the incidence, the pathogenetic mechanisms, and the clinical implications of cardiac injury in this setting. RECENT FINDINGS: The possibility of heart involvement in patients with COVID-19 has received great attention since the beginning of the pandemic. After more than two years, several steps have been taken in understanding the mechanisms and the incidence of cardiac injury during COVID-19 infection. Similarly, studies globally have clarified the implications of co-existing heart disease and COVID-19. Severe COVID-19 infection may be complicated by myocardial injury. To date, a direct damage from the virus has not been demonstrated. The presence of myocardial injury should be systematically assessed for a prognostication purpose and for possible therapeutic implications.

MIRACLE2 Score and SCAI Grade to Identify Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest for Immediate Coronary Angiography.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing immediate coronary angiography (CAG) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with stratification of predicted neurologic injury and cardiogenic shock on arrival to a center. BACKGROUND: The role of immediate CAG for patients with OHCA is unclear, which may in part be explained by the majority of patients dying of hypoxic brain injury. METHODS: Between May 2012 and July 2020, patients from 5 European centers were included in the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry). Patients were retrospectively classified into low vs high neurologic risk (MIRACLE2 score 0-3 vs ≥4) and degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions [SCAI] grade A vs B-E). A multivariable logistic regression analysis including immediate CAG was performed for the primary outcome of survival with good neurologic outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-six patients were included in the registry, with 405 (43.7%) in the low-risk group and 521 (56.3%) in the high-risk group. Immediate CAG was independently associated with improved survival with good neurologic outcome in the low MIRACLE2 risk group with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 11.80; 95% CI: 2.24-76.74; P = 0.048) and with SCAI grade B to E shock (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.10-9.50; P = 0.031). No subgroups, including those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and with SCAI grade B to E shock, achieved any benefit from early CAG in the high MIRACLE2 group. CONCLUSIONS: Combined classification of patients with OHCA with 12-lead electrocardiography, MIRACLE2 score 0 to 3, and SCAI grade B to E identifies a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate CAG.

Clinical Significance of Early Echocardiographic Changes after Resuscitated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD) is common after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and can manifest globally or regionally, although its clinical significance has not been robustly studied. This study evaluates the association between LVSD, extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) and outcome in those undergoing early echocardiography and coronary angiography after OOHCA. METHODS: Trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed in OOHCA patients on arrival to our centre between May 2012 and December 2017. Rates of cardiogenic shock and extent of CAD, respectively classified by SCAI grade and the SYNTAX score, were measured. The primary end-point was 12-month mortality. RESULTS: From 398 patients in the King's Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry (KOCAR), 266 patients (median age 61 [53-71], 76% male) underwent both TTE and coronary angiography on arrival. 96 patients (36%) had significant LVSD (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction [LVEF] <40%) and 139 (52.2%) patients had regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs). Patients with LVEF <40% had more SCAI grade C-E shock (65.3% vs. 34.5%, p <0.001) and higher 12-month mortality (55.2% vs 31.8%, p <0.001) which was more likely to be due to a cardiac aetiology (27.3% vs 5.3%, p <0.001). Patients with RWMAs had higher median SYNTAX scores (14.75 vs 7, p=0.001), culprit coronary lesions (83.5% vs. 45.3%, p <0.001) and lower 12-month mortality (29.5% vs 52%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LVEF <40% at presentation have an increased mortality, driven by cardiac aetiology death, while the presence of RWMAs is associated with a higher rate of culprit coronary lesions, representing a potentially reversible cause of the arrest, and improved survival at 1 year.

British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Consensus Position Statement on Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest 2: Post-discharge Rehabilitation.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major public health issue that poses significant challenges both in immediate management and long-term follow-up. Survivors of OHCA often experience a combination of complex medical, physical and psychological needs that have a significant impact on quality of life. Guidelines suggest a multi-dimensional follow-up to address both physical and non-physical domains for survivors. However, it is likely that there is substantial unwarranted variation in provision of services throughout the UK. Currently, there is no nationally agreed model for the follow-up of OHCA survivors and there is an urgent need for a set of standards and guidelines in order to ensure equal access for all. Accordingly, the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society established a multi-disciplinary working group to develop a position statement that summarises the most up-to-date evidence and provides guidance on essential and desirable services for a dedicated follow-up pathway for survivors of OHCA.

British Cardiovascular Interventional Society Consensus Position Statement on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest 1: Pathway of Care.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) affects 80,000 patients per year in the UK; despite improvements in care, survival to discharge remains lower than 10%. NHS England and several societies recommend all resuscitated OHCA patients be directly transferred to a cardiac arrest centre (CAC). However, evidence is limited that all patients benefit from transfer to a CAC, and there are significant organisational, logistic and financial implications associated with such change in policies. Furthermore, there is significant variability in interventional cardiovascular practices for OHCA. Accordingly, the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society established a multidisciplinary group to address variability in practice and provide recommendations for the development of cardiac networks. In this position statement, we recommend: the formal establishment of dedicated CACs; a pathway of conveyance to CACs; and interventional practice to standardise our approach. Further research is needed to understand the role of CACs and which interventions benefit patients with OHCA to support wide-scale changes in networks of care across the UK.

Excess deaths in people with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase mortality risk from coronavirus infection (COVID-19). There are also concerns that the pandemic has affected supply and demand of acute cardiovascular care. We estimated excess mortality in specific CVDs, both 'direct', through infection, and 'indirect', through changes in healthcare. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used (i) national mortality data for England and Wales to investigate trends in non-COVID-19 and CVD excess deaths; (ii) routine data from hospitals in England (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), and China (n = 5) to assess indirect pandemic effects on referral, diagnosis, and treatment services for CVD; and (iii) population-based electronic health records from 3 862 012 individuals in England to investigate pre- and post-COVID-19 mortality for people with incident and prevalent CVD. We incorporated pre-COVID-19 risk (by age, sex, and comorbidities), estimated population COVID-19 prevalence, and estimated relative risk (RR) of mortality in those with CVD and COVID-19 compared with CVD and non-infected (RR: 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0).Mortality data suggest indirect effects on CVD will be delayed rather than contemporaneous (peak RR 1.14). CVD service activity decreased by 60-100% compared with pre-pandemic levels in eight hospitals across China, Italy, and England. In China, activity remained below pre-COVID-19 levels for 2-3 months even after easing lockdown and is still reduced in Italy and England. For total CVD (incident and prevalent), at 10% COVID-19 prevalence, we estimated direct impact of 31 205 and 62 410 excess deaths in England (RR 1.5 and 2.0, respectively), and indirect effect of 49 932 to 99 865 deaths. CONCLUSION: Supply and demand for CVD services have dramatically reduced across countries with potential for substantial, but avoidable, excess mortality during and after the pandemic.

Coronary Revascularization and Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: Past, Present and Future.

Cardiologists and the cardiac catheter laboratory have key roles to play in the management of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Although immediate catheter laboratory activation is the standard of care in cardiogenic shock and ST elevation myocardial infarction, the majority of patients will present without these features and with an uncertain diagnosis. Even in the latter, early assessment and invasive management may be beneficial, but this is counterbalanced by significant resource utilization, potential to cause harm and the possibility that any diagnostic or therapeutic gains are offset by a poor neurological outcome. Past consensus on the management of the OHCA patient without ST elevation or cardiogenic shock is being challenged by emerging results from new trials in this field. Further randomized trials are ongoing, and are expected to deliver robust data from over 4,000 patients, allowing us to further refine the optimal management strategy in this challenging cohort. This article describes the benefits and pitfalls of a strategy of immediate coronary angiography in these patients, examines the recently published COACT and TOMAHAWK trials in detail, and describes a framework with which to approach the patient after resuscitated OHCA, based on the available evidence to date.