HEART Score Recalibration Using Higher Sensitivity Troponin T.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examined the diagnostic performance of a recalibrated History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, Troponin (HEART), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score in patients with suspected acute cardiac syndrome (ACS). Recalibration of troponin thresholds was performed, including shifting from the 99th percentile to the limit of detection (LOD) or to the limit of quantification (LOQ) We compared the discharge potential and safety of the recalibrated composite scores using a single presentation high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) T to the conventional scores and with a LOD/LOQ troponin strategy alone. METHODS: We undertook a 2-center prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom (UK) (2018) (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03619733) to specifically assess recalibrated risk scores (shifting the troponin subset scoring from 99th percentile to LOD [UK]) and combined the results of this with secondary analyses of 2 prospective cohort studies in the UK (2011) and the United States (2018, using LOQ rather than LOD). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as adjudicated type 1 myocardial infarction (MI), urgent coronary revascularization, and all-cause death, at 30 days. We evaluated the original scores using hs-cTn below the 99th percentile and recalibrated scores using hs-cTn

The effect of carvedilol on B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac function in patients with heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the relationship between changes in natriuretic peptides and symptoms as a consequence of introducing beta-blocker therapy, in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 47 patients with CHF and persistent AF (mean age 68 years and 62% men), we analysed the individual change (Δ) in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level to the introduction of carvedilol (titrated to a target dose of 25 mg twice daily, group A) or placebo (group B) in addition to background treatment with digoxin. Symptoms score, 6-min walk distance, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart rate (24-hour ECG) and BNP were measured at baseline and at 4 months. RESULTS: LVEF (Δ median +5 vs. +0.4, p = 0.048), symptoms score (Δ median -4 vs. 0, p = 0.04), NYHA class (Δ median -33% vs. +3% in NYHA class 3-4, p = 0.046) and heart rate [Δ median 24-hour ventricular rate (VR) -19 vs. -2, p < 0.0001] improved with combination therapy of digoxin and carvedilol compared to digoxin alone, but BNP (Δ median +28 vs. -6 , p = 0.11) trended in the opposite direction. There was no relationship between the degree of symptomatic improvement or VR control and BNP response. CONCLUSION: After the introduction of carvedilol, clinical outcome appears unrelated to BNP changes in patients with CHF and AF. Changes in BNP cannot be used as a marker of clinical response in terms of symptoms or cardiac function in this setting.

The intersection of atrial fibrillation and heart failure in a hospitalised population.

OBJECTIVES: This work set out to comprehensively characterize patients admitted to hospital with both atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) and to compare this cohort of patients to the global hospital population of patients with only one of these diagnoses. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective analysis of all in-patients with HF and AF admitted to a large urban hospital over a 3-month period. Patients with AF were identified by both discharge codes and electrocardiograms. HF patients were identified by means of discharge codes for HF and by screening all patients with AF, a common comorbidity of HF. Evidence for left ventricular (LV) dysfunction was sought. Of patients with AF (n = 453), 43% had symptoms of HF and LV dysfunction. Of patients with a discharge code and confirmed HF (n = 286), 34% had AF, 60% of whom were in chronic AF. Compared to HF patients in sinus rhythm those in AF were older (70 +/- 10 y vs 67 +/- 12 y, P < 0.02), had a higher prevalence of valvular heart disease (25% vs 7%, P < 0.0001) and a lower prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (17% vs 40%, P < 0.0001). HF patients identified by discharge codes in AF were more likely to have QRS > or = 120 msec (18% vs 12% in sinus rhythm; P= ns). Patients with AF and deemed to suffer concomitant HF, as opposed to AF alone, were significantly more likely to have QRS prolongation (QRS > or = 120 msec 27% vs 8%, P < 0.05). 8% of patients with AF and HF had a QRS > 150 msec. CONCLUSIONS: AF and HF are frequent, concomitant pathologies in a hospitalised population. AF complicates HF assessment and treatment. Greater dyssynchrony, as denoted by ECG, in the AF and HF population suggests opportunities for treatment of HF by cardiac resynchronization therapy and ablative therapies.

Effusive-constrictive pericarditis in the absence of overt pericardial disease on multiple imaging modalities.

Effusive-constrictive pericarditis (ECP) is a rare condition that may prove fatal without appropriate treatment. In ECP, there is concomitant existence of a pericardial effusion and CP, that together lead to impaired cardiac filling. Therapeutic pericardiocentesis only addresses part of the problem; surgical pericardiectomy may be required to relieve the constrictive element. Imaging in ECP characteristically demonstrates calcification or thickening of the pericardium. The authors describe a case of ECP were a number of imaging modalities (including echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance and CT) did not identify overt pericardial disease. The patient underwent surgical pericardiectomy that led to a rapid resolution of symptoms and full recovery. Histopathological analysis of the pericardial biopsy indicated a non-specific pericardial fibrosis, in keeping with the final diagnosis of ECP.

The assessment of autonomic function in chronic atrial fibrillation: description of a non-invasive technique based on circadian rhythm of atrioventricular nodal functional refractory periods.

AIMS: Heart rate variability (HRV) parameters can be used to assess autonomic function and to predict outcome, but this has been done exclusively in patients with sinus rhythm. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest sustained arrhythmia and is particularly prevalent in heart failure. We have developed a simple index to assess autonomic function in patients with chronic AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients with chronic AF (>1 month) and symptoms of heart failure underwent ambulatory 24 h electrocardiography recording as well as evaluation of symptoms, exercise capacity (6 min walk distance), ventricular function (echocardiography and radionuclide ventriculography), and neuroendocrine activation. A number of standard HRV parameters shown to have prognostic significance in sinus rhythm were also determined. A modified in-house HRV statistical programme was used to filter labelled QRS intervals and to compute the 5th percentile RR interval in each hour. This parameter has been shown to approximate the functional refractory period (FRP) of the atrioventricular node (AVN). A cosine curve was fitted to hourly 5th percentile RR intervals for each patient and from this was estimated the diurnal change in hourly 5th percentile RR interval (approximating DeltaFRP of the AVN) and, by inference, diurnal variation in sympathovagal input to the AVN. Digoxin was the sole agent permitted for control of ventricular rate. DeltaFRP of the AVN varied and revealed a significant correlation, on multivariate analysis, with mean RR interval (P<0.001), SDARR (SD of 5-min average RR intervals during 24 h, P<0.001), and NYHA class of heart failure (classes III and IV heart failure vs. classes I and II, P=0.02). SDARR has previously been shown independently to predict mortality in patients with chronic AF and heart failure. CONCLUSION: This analysis describes a novel non-invasive method for assessing autonomic function in chronic AF. Whether DeltaFRP in chronic AF patients can independently predict adverse prognosis or sudden death requires further study.

Do discharge codes underestimate hospitalisation due to heart failure? Validation study of hospital discharge coding for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Discharge codes are frequently used to describe hospital activity related to heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether discharge codes for HF underestimated or overestimated hospital activity related to HF. DESIGN: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), who commonly have HF, were identified and their case notes reviewed to identify cases of HF missed by discharge codes. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Patients admitted between November 1997 and January 1998 with either HF or AF. Identification of HF and AF by ICD10 hospital discharge codes. Identification of additional cases of AF from a central hospital-wide ECG database. RESULTS: We identified 330 cases with an ICD 10 code for HF, of which 43 (13%) were deemed to be miscoded, 32 patients (10%) were classified as possible, 39 (12%) as probable and 216 (65%) as definite HF. Results were similar whether or not HF was the primary discharge diagnosis. We identified 452 patients with AF, of whom 45 (10%) were classified as probable and 193 (43%) as definite HF. 129 (54%) of these cases had no diagnostic discharge code for HF. ICD 10 discharge codes for HF were correct in 77% of cases but identified only 66% of patients with probable or definite HF in this analysis. Screening of other diagnoses would have identified further cases of HF. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital discharge codes substantially underestimate hospital events related to HF in the UK.

Carvedilol alone or in combination with digoxin for the management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure?

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relative merits of digoxin, carvedilol, and their combination for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: In patients with AF and HF, both digoxin and beta-blockers reduce the ventricular rate, and both may improve symptoms, but only beta-blockers have been shown to improve prognosis. If combined therapy is not superior to beta-blockers alone, treatment of patients with HF and AF could be simplified by stopping digoxin. METHODS: We enrolled 47 patients (29 males; mean age 68 years) with persistent AF and HF (mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 24%) in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. In the first phase of the study, digoxin was compared with the combination of digoxin and carvedilol (four months). In the second phase, digoxin was withdrawn in a double-blinded manner in the carvedilol-treated arm, thus allowing a comparison between digoxin and carvedilol (six months). Investigations were undertaken at baseline and at the end of each phase. RESULTS: Compared with digoxin alone, combination therapy lowered the ventricular rate on 24-h ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring (p < 0.0001) and during submaximal exercise (p < 0.05), whereas LVEF (p < 0.05) and symptom score (p < 0.05) improved. In phase 2, there was no significant difference between digoxin alone and carvedilol alone in any variable. The mean ventricular rate rose and LVEF fell when patients switched from combination therapy to carvedilol alone. Six-minute walk distance was not significantly influenced by any therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of carvedilol and digoxin appears generally superior to either carvedilol or digoxin alone in the management of AF in patients with HF.