Clinical and Genetic Evaluation of People with or at Risk of Hereditary ATTR Amyloidosis: An Expert Opinion and Consensus on Best Practice in Ireland and the UK.

Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (hATTR) is challenging to diagnose early owing to the heterogeneity of clinical presentation, which differs according to the TTR gene variant and its penetrance in each individual. The TTR variants seen most frequently in the UK and Ireland (T80A, V142I and V50M) differ to those commonly occurring in other geographic locations and warrant a specific consideration for diagnosis and genetic testing. In addition, recent availability of treatment for this condition has reinforced the need for a more consistent approach to the management of patients, including access to specialist services, genetic testing and counselling, and clinical investigation for families living in the UK and Ireland. A multidisciplinary panel of experts from the UK and Ireland was convened to identify the current challenges, provide recommendations, and develop a consensus for the diagnosis and screening of people with, or at risk of, hATTR. Over a series of meetings, experts shared their current practices and drafted, refined and approved a consensus statement. This consensus statement provides recommendations for three different groups: (1) people with symptoms raising a possibility of hATTR amyloidosis; (2) people with biopsy-confirmed hATTR amyloidosis; and (3) people without symptoms who may have hATTR amyloidosis (i.e. relatives of people with identified TTR variants). For each group, recommendations are made for the required steps for the diagnosis and follow-up of symptomatic patients, and for guidance on the specialist support for counselling and pre-symptomatic genetic testing of at-risk individuals. This guidance is intended to be practical and based on available evidence. The aim is for regional amyloid specialist centres to provide timely diagnosis, clinical screening, and treatment for individuals and their families with hATTR amyloidosis.

Clinical prediction of genotypes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common inherited cardiac condition and the most common cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients below the age of 35. Genetic testing is a vital part of HCM diagnostics, yet correlation with clinical phenotypes remains complex. Identifying clinical predictors of informative genetic testing may prevent unnecessary investigations and improve cost-effectiveness of services. This article reviews the current literature pertinent to identifying such predictors. METHODS: Five literature databases were screened using a suitably designed search strategy. Studies investigating the correlation between having a positive genetic test for HCM and a range of clinical and radiological parameters were included in the systematic review. RESULTS: Twenty-nine observational studies of a total of 9,486 patients were included. The main predictors of informative genetic testing were younger age, higher septal thickness, reverse septal curvature, family history of HCM and SCD and the absence of hypertension. Two externally validated scoring systems have also been developed: the Mayo and Toronto scores. Novel imaging markers and complex algorithmic models are emerging predictors. CONCLUSION: Using clinical predictors to decide whom to test is a feasible alternative to investigating all comers. Nonetheless, currently there is not enough evidence to unequivocally recommend for or against this strategy. Further validation of current predictors and identification of new ones remain open research avenues.

Comparison of the antiplatelet and antithrombotic effects of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin: A platelet substudy of the HEAT PPCI trial.

In randomised trials, bivalirudin has been associated with higher rates of acute stent thrombosis (AST) compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), without mechanistic explanation. Furthermore, data are discrepant regards the antiplatelet effects of bivalirudin. This prespecified study, part of a larger HEAT-PPCI Platelet Substudy, aimed to compare the antiplatelet and antithrombotic effects of bivalirudin and UFH using short thrombelastography (s-TEG), an ex vivo whole blood platelet function assay. In HEAT-PPCI, patients were randomised to receive UFH or bivalirudin before angiography. Assay with s-TEG was performed in 184 patients (10.2%) at end of procedure (EOP) and repeated at 24 h. In addition to adenosine diphosphate- (ADP) and arachidonic acid- (AA) mediated platelet aggregation, thrombin-mediated clotting (TMC) was assessed using kaolin with and without heparinase. There were no significant differences between UFH and bivalirudin in ADP- and AA-mediated platelet aggregation at EOP or 24 h. Whilst UFH obliterated TMC at EOP, bivalirudin prolonged R time (19.7 min [15.9-25.4] vs. 8.4 min [7.5-10]; P < 0.0001), K time (2.4 min [1.9-3.4] vs. 2.2 min [1.8-2.7]; P = 0.007) and significantly increased maximum clot strength (MA 62.7 mm [58.7-67.4] vs. 58.6 [55-63]; P = 0.0005), compared to control. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in the antiplatelet effects of UFH and bivalirudin. However, whilst UFH obliterated TMC, bivalirudin prolonged clot initiation but potentiated maximum clot strength. As AST is likely multifactorial in aetiology, in patients treated with bivalirudin, increased clot strength may contribute to this hazard in some individuals and this observation warrants further investigation.

Describing Activity in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Exploration of Denominators. From the HEAT Trial - A Systematic Evaluation of PPCI Activations in Liverpool, Explaining Denominators (HEAT-SEALED).

BACKGROUND: The provision of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the emergency management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is expensive and resource intensive. Accurate data collection is essential not only for outcomes analysis but also to characterize activity and performance for regions, centers, and operators. Inconsistency in the use of denominators currently creates problems in data interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To establish a system of denominator groupings, seeking to better describe the range of clinical activity resulting from an unselected series of PPCI activations. METHODS: The HEAT-SEALED pathway designates a key denominator group (n1-n9) to each phase of PPCI activity and identifies a final "destination category" for each patient leaving the pathway. HEAT-PPCI (How Effective are Antithrombotic Therapies in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) is a true "all-comers" trial and provides an ideal platform to collect data for prospective validation of the pathway. We report data from all PPCI activation events for the HEAT-PPCI trial. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate important differences between the sizes of key PPCI denominator groups and hence the potential for variation in reported outcomes depending on the denominator category selected. The main figures are: all activations (n1 = 2490); all suspected MI cases (n4 = 1940; 77.91%); patients in whom angiography was performed (n5 = 1904; 76.46%); cases in which diagnosis was confirmed with a probable culprit lesion (n6 = 1657; 66.54%), and cases with complete PCI success (n9 = 1441; 57.87%). CONCLUSION: The HEAT-SEALED pathway offers a practical and comprehensive solution to the problem of describing denominators in STEMI and PPCI. Routine application would facilitate a more consistent and precise description of activity and outcome.

Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin, with selective use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor agents, is an accepted standard of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We aimed to compare antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during this procedure. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled consecutive adults scheduled for angiography in the context of a PPCI presentation at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital (Liverpool, UK) with a strategy of delayed consent. Before angiography, we randomly allocated patients (1:1; stratified by age [<75 years vs ≥75 years] and presence of cardiogenic shock [yes vs no]) to heparin (70 U/kg) or bivalirudin (bolus 0·75 mg/kg; infusion 1·75 mg/kg per h). Patients were followed up for 28 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accident, reinfarction, or unplanned target lesion revascularisation. The primary safety outcome was incidence of major bleeding (type 3-5 as per Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01519518. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2012, and Nov 20, 2013, 1829 of 1917 patients undergoing emergency angiography at our centre (representing 97% of trial-naive presentations) were randomly allocated treatment, with 1812 included in the final analyses. 751 (83%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 740 (82%) of 907 patients in the heparin group had a percutaneous coronary intervention. The rate of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was much the same between groups (122 patients [13%] in the bivalirudin group and 140 patients [15%] in the heparin group). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 79 (8·7%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 52 (5·7%) of 907 patients in the heparin group (absolute risk difference 3·0%; relative risk [RR] 1·52, 95% CI 1·09-2·13, p=0·01). The primary safety outcome occurred in 32 (3·5%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 28 (3·1%) of 907 patients in the heparin group (0·4%; 1·15, 0·70-1·89, p=0·59). INTERPRETATION: Compared with bivalirudin, heparin reduces the incidence of major adverse ischaemic events in the setting of PPCI, with no increase in bleeding complications. Systematic use of heparin rather than bivalirudin would reduce drug costs substantially. FUNDING: Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, UK National Institute of Health Research, The Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, The Bentley Drivers Club (UK).

The objective structured public health examination: a study of reliability using multi-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Introduced in 2006, the objective structured public health examination (OSPHE) is a part of the examination for the UK Membership of the Faculty of Public Health. Designed to simulate real work in public health, the same five generic competencies were assessed simultaneously in each of six stations in 1 h 48 min. This study estimates the examination reliability of the OSPHE. METHODS: Data from all 198 candidates, 54 questions, 39 examiners over 9 test days in 2006 were analysed for reliability and sources of error using multilevel cross-classified analysis and generalisability theory. RESULTS: A reliability co-efficient of 0.85 was estimated (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.88). Little variance was accounted for by questions or examiners. Twelve questions would increase reliability to 0.92. More than one examiner per question has negligible impact on reliability. CONCLUSION: Multilevel modelling estimates examination reliability which is more rigorous than Cronbach's alpha. Traditional generalisability methods based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) are unable to do this. The reliability of this examination compares favourably with the literature despite having just six test stations and under 2 h per candidate. Other specialties could consider the use of parallel testing of the same key competencies at all stations within simulated workplace events.