Disección coronaria espontánea en España: un estudio sobre bases administrativas realizado a partir del Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos español / Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in Spain: a study using the minimum data set of the Spanish National Health System

Introducción y objetivos La disección coronaria espontánea (DCE) es una causa poco común de infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM). En este estudio se comparan la mortalidad y los reingresos hospitalarios de los pacientes con IAM-DCE e IAM de otras etiologías (IAM-NDCE). Métodos Se calcularon las razones de mortalidad hospitalaria y de reingresos a los 30 días estandarizadas por riesgo (RAMER y RARER respectivamente) utilizando el Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos del Sistema Nacional de Salud español (2016-2019). Resultados Se hallaron 806 eventos de IAM-DCE y 119.425 de IMA-NDCE. Los IAM-DCE se produjeron en pacientes más jóvenes y más frecuentemente mujeres que los IAM-NDCE. La mortalidad bruta fue menor (el 3 frente al 7,6%; p<0,001) y la RAMER, mayor (el 7,6±1,7 frente al 7,4±1,7%; p=0,019) en los IAM-DCE. Tras emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión (806 parejas), la mortalidad fue similar en ambos grupos (AdjOR=1,15; IC95%, 0,61-2,2; p=0,653). La tasa bruta de reingresos de los pacientes con IAM-DCE a 30 días fue similar (el 4,6 frente al 5%; p=0,67), mientras que la RARER fue menor (el 4,7±1 frente al 4,8±1%; p=0,015). Tras el emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión (715 parejas), la tasa de ingresos fue similar en ambos grupos (AdjOR=1,14; IC95%, 0,67-1,98; p=0,603). Conclusiones La mortalidad hospitalaria y los reingresos a los 30 días de los pacientes con IAM-DCE es similar a la de los IAM-NDCE cuando el riesgo se ajusta a las características basales de la población. Estos datos resaltan la necesidad de optimizar el manejo, tratamiento y seguimiento clínico de los pacientes con DCE (AU)

Introduction and objectives Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the results on in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates among patients with AMI-SCAD vs AMI due to other causes (AMI-non-SCAD). Methods Risk-standardized in-hospital mortality (rIMR) and risk-standardized 30-day readmission ratios (rRAR) were calculated using the minimum dataset of the Spanish National Health System (2016-2019). Results A total of 806 episodes of AMI-SCAD were compared with 119 425 episodes of AMI–non-SCAD. Patients with AMI-SCAD were younger and more frequently female than those with AMI–non-SCAD. Crude in-hospital mortality was lower (3% vs 7.6%; P<.001) and rIMR higher (7.6±1.7% vs 7.4±1.7%; P=.019) in AMI-SCAD. However, after propensity score adjustment (806 pairs), the mortality rate was similar in the 2 groups (AdjOR, 1.15; 95%CI, 0.61-2,2; P=.653). Crude 30-day readmission rates were also similar in the 2 groups (4.6% vs 5%, P=.67) whereas rRAR were lower (4.7±1% vs 4.8%±1%; P=.015) in patients with AMI-SCAD. Again, after propensity score adjustment (715 pairs) readmission rates were similar in the 2 groups (AdjOR, 1.14; 95%CI, 0.67–1.98; P=.603). Conclusions In-hospital mortality and readmission rates are similar in patients with AMI-SCAD and AMI–non-SCAD when adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics. These findings underscore the need to optimize the management, treatment, and clinical follow-up of patients with SCAD (AU)

Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding risk scores in STEMI undergoing primary PCI: insights from a cohort of 1391 patients.

AIMS: To compare the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk models in the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: We studied all consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI at our institution between 2006 and 2010 (n=1391). The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk scores were calculated based on the patients' clinical characteristics. The occurrence of in-hospital major bleeding (defined as the composite of intracranial or intraocular bleeding, access site haemorrhage requiring intervention, reduction in haemoglobin ≥4 g/dl without or ≥3g/dl with overt bleeding source, reoperation for bleeding, or blood transfusion) reached 9.8%. Calibration and discrimination of the three risk models were evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the C-statistic, respectively. We compared the predictive accuracy of the risk scores by the DeLong non-parametric test. RESULTS: Calibration of the three risk scores was adequate, given the non-significant results of Hosmer-Lemeshow test for the three risk models. Discrimination of CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION models was good (C-statistic 0.77, 0.70, and 0.78, respectively). The CRUSADE and ACTION risk scores had a greater predictive accuracy than the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk model (z=3.89, p-value=0.0001 and z=3.51, p-value=0.0004, respectively). There was no significant difference between the CRUSADE and ACTION models (z=0.63, p=0.531). CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION scores are useful tools for the risk stratification of bleeding in STEMI treated by PPCI. Our findings favour the CRUSADE and ACTION risk models over the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk score.