Design, Rationale and Initial Findings From HERA-FIB on 10 222 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Presenting to an Emergency Department Over An 11-Year Period.

BACKGROUND: For the majority of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), disease management has improved in recent years. However, there are still populations underrepresented or excluded in current registries and randomized controlled trials. HERA-FIB (Heidelberg Registry of Atrial Fibrillation) was planned to assess real-world evidence for the prevalence, demographic characteristics and management of patients with the diagnosis of AF presenting consecutively to a chest pain unit. METHODS AND RESULTS: HERA-FIB is a retrospective, observational, single-center study on patients with a diagnosis of AF presenting to a chest pain unit from June 2009 until March 2020. This article describes the structure, governance, outcome assessment, quality and data collection processes of the registry. Additionally, characteristics of populations of special interest are described. The study consecutively enrolled 10 222 patients presenting with AF to the chest pain unit of the University Hospital of Heidelberg. Clinical parameters and patient characteristics were assessed retrospectively. Outcome parameters included rates for all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction and major bleedings. We were able to investigate patient cohorts of special interest such as advanced chronic kidney disease, octogenarians, and those with acute coronary syndrome who are often underrepresented in current studies and randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: HERA-FIB is one of the largest real-world single-center retrospective registries on patients with AF, which captures the era of transition from vitamin K antagonists to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulation regimens in clinical practice and offers the possibility to investigate patient populations usually underrepresented or excluded in current available randomized controlled trials and registries. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT05995561.

Comparison of the clinical chemistry score to other biomarker algorithms for rapid rule-out of acute myocardial infarction and risk stratification in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The clinical chemistry score (CCS) comprising high-sensitivity cardiac troponins (hs-cTn), glucose and estimated glomerular filtration rate has been previously validated with superior accuracy for detection and risk stratification of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to hs-cTn alone. METHODS: The CCS was compared to other biomarker-based algorithms for rapid rule-out and prognostication of AMI including the hs-cTnT limit-of-blank (LOB, <3 ng/L) or limit-of-detection (LOD, <5 ng/L) and a dual marker strategy (DMS) (copeptin <10 pmol/L and hs-cTnT ≤14 ng/L) in 1506 emergency department (ED) patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome. Negative predictive values (NPV) and sensitivities for AMI rule-out, and 12-month combined endpoint rates encompassing mortality, myocardial re-infarction, as well as stroke were assessed. RESULTS: NPVs of 100% (95% CI: 98.3-100%) were observed for CCS = 0, hs-cTnT LoB and hs-cTnT LoD with rule-out efficacies of 11.1%, 7.6% and 18.3% as well as specificities of 13.0% (95% CI: 9.9-16.6%), 8.8% (95% CI: 7.3-10.5%) and 21.4% (95% CI: 19.2-23.8%), respectively. A CCS ≤ 1 achieved a rule-out in 32.2% of all patients with a NPV of 99.6% (95% CI: 98.4-99.9%) and specificity of 37.4% (95% CI: 34.2-40.5%) compared to a rule-out efficacy of 51.2%, NPV of 99.0 (95% CI: 98.0-99.5) and specificity of 59.7% (95% CI: 57.0-62.4%) for the DMS. Rates of the combined end-point of death/AMI within 30 days ranged between 0.0% and 0.7% for all fast-rule-out protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The CCS ensures reliable AMI rule-out with low short and long-term outcome rates for a specific ED patient subset. However, compared to a single or dual biomarker strategy, the CCS displays reduced efficacy and specificity, limiting its clinical utility.

Real-World Evidence on Disparities on the Initiation of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Background Management of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is based on 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which recommend the preferential use of prasugrel over ticagrelor. Because the selection of the respective P2Y12 inhibitor has to consider label restrictions, we sought to evaluate the proportion of patients qualifying for either ticagrelor or prasugrel and reasons for noneligibility in an unselected cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods and Results In this retrospective observational study, patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or NSTE-ACS presenting consecutively during a 24-month period were enrolled. The eligibility of patients for a dual antiplatelet therapy option was assessed retrospectively. A total of 1502 patients had confirmed acute coronary syndrome (287 STEMI and 1215 NSTE-ACS). Eligibility for ticagrelor and full-dose prasugrel differed significantly for STEMI and NSTE-ACS (93% versus 51%, P<0.0001 versus 80% versus 31%, P<0.0001). Eligibility remained significantly lower (STEMI 78% versus NSTE-ACS 52%) if low-dose prasugrel was considered. Patients eligible for full-dose prasugrel had lower ischemic risk per GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score (109 points [90-129 points] versus 121 points [98-146 points], P<0.0001) and lower bleeding risk (14 points [13-15 points] versus 20 points [12-29 points], P<0.0001) per PRECISE-DAPT (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) score. Conclusions In real life, eligibility for prasugrel in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy is considerably lower than for ticagrelor, even in a cohort with high rates of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. The recommended use of prasugrel over ticagrelor in current acute coronary syndrome guidelines contrasts with our observations of a substantial disparity on the eligibility. This important aspect has not received appropriate attention yet. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05774431.