External validation of the preHEART score and comparison with current clinical risk scores for prehospital risk assessment in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) studies have shown that prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can be improved using clinical risk scores with point-of-care (POC) troponin. In current EMS studies, three different clinical risk scores are used in patients suspected of NSTE-ACS: the prehospital History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (preHEART) score, History, ECG, Age, Risk and Troponin (HEART) score and Troponin-only Manchester Acute Coronary Syndromes (T-MACS). The preHEART score lacks external validation and there exists no prospective comparative analysis of the different risk scores within the prehospital setting. The aim of this analysis is to externally validate the preHEART score and compare the diagnostic performance of the these three clinical risk scores and POC-troponin. METHODS: Prespecified analysis from a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS who were transported to an ED between April 2021 and December 2022 in the Netherlands. Risk stratification is performed by EMS personnel using preHEART, HEART, T-MACS and POC-troponin. The primary end point was the hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS. The diagnostic performance was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: A total of 823 patients were included for external validation of the preHEART score, final hospital diagnosis of NSTE-ACS was made in 29% (n=235). The preHEART score classified 27% as low risk, with a sensitivity of 92.8% (95% CI 88.7 to 95.7) and NPV of 92.3% (95% CI 88.3 to 95.1). The preHEART classified 9% of the patients as high risk, with a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI 97.1 to 99.3) and PPV of 87.7% (95% CI 78.3 to 93.4). Data for comparing clinical risk scores and POC-troponin were available in 316 patients. No difference was found between the preHEART score and HEART score (AUROC 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87) vs AUROC 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85), p=0.19), and both were superior compared with T-MACS (AUROC 0.72 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), p≤0.001 and p=0.03, respectively) and POC-troponin measurement alone (AUROC 0.71 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.78), p<0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: On external validation, the preHEART demonstrates good overall diagnostic performance as a prehospital risk stratification tool. Both the preHEART and HEART scores have better overall diagnostic performance compared with T-MACS and sole POC-troponin measurement. These data support the implementation of clinical risk scores in prehospital clinical pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05243485.

Prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention centre in suspected acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital risk stratification and triage are currently not performed in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This may lead to prolonged time to revascularisation, increased duration of hospital admission and higher healthcare costs. The preHEART score (prehospital history, ECG, age, risk factors and point-of-care troponin score) can be used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with NSTE-ACS. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre, based on the preHEART score, on time to final invasive diagnostics or culprit revascularisation. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, two-cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. The first cohort is observational (standard care), while the second (interventional) cohort includes patients who are stratified for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI centre based on their preHEART score. Risk stratification and triage are performed by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint of the study is time from first medical contact until final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation. Secondary endpoints are time from first medical contact until intracoronary angiography (ICA), duration of hospital admission, number of invasive diagnostics, number of inter-hospital transfers and major adverse cardiac events at 7 and 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were included. In the interventional cohort (n=577), time between final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation (42 (17-101) hours vs 20 (5-44) hours, p<0.001) and length of hospital admission (3 (2-5) days vs 2 (1-4) days, p=0.007) were shorter than in the observational cohort (n=492). In patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation, healthcare costs were reduced in the interventional cohort (€5599 (2978-9625) vs €4899 (2278-5947), p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI centre, based on the preHEART score, reduces time from first medical contact to final invasive diagnostics and revascularisation, reduces duration of hospital admission and decreases healthcare costs in patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05243485.

Direct admission versus interhospital transfer for revascularisation in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The differences in outcomes and process parameters for NSTEMI patients who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre are largely unknown. HYPOTHESIS: There are differences in process indicators, but not for clinical outcomes, for NSTEMI who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre. METHODS: We aim to compare process indicators, costs and clinical outcomes of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients stratified by center of first presentation and revascularisation strategy. Hospital claim data from patients admitted with a NSTEMI between 2017 and 2019 were used for this study. Included patients were stratified by center of admission (intervention vs. general center) and subdivided by revascularisation strategy (PCI, CABG, or no revascularisation [noRevasc]). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included: duration between admission and diagnostic angiography and revascularisation, number of intracoronary procedures, clinical outcomes at 30 days (MACE: all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiac readmission) and total costs (accumulation of costs for hospital claims and interhospital ambulance rides). RESULTS: A total of 9641 NSTEMI events (9167 unique patients) were analyzed of which 5399 patients (56%) were admitted at an intervention center and 4242 patients to a general center. Duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter at direct presentation at an intervention centre for all study groups (5 days [2-11] vs. 7 days [4-12], p < 0.001). For PCI, direct presentation at an intervention center yielded shorter time to diagnostic angiography (1 day [0-2] vs. 1 day [1-2], p < 0.01) and revascularisation (1 day [0-3] vs. 4 days [1-7], p < 0.001) and less intracoronary procedures per patient (2 [1-2] vs. 2 [2-2], p < 0.001). For CABG, time to revascularisation was shorter (8 days [5-12] vs. 10 days [7-14], p < 0.001). Total costs were significantly lower in case of direct presentation in an intervention center for all treatment groups €10.211 (8750-18.192) versus €13.741 (11.588-19.381), p < 0.001) while MACE was similar 11.8% versus 12.4%, p = 0.344). CONCLUSION: NSTEMI patients who were directly presented to an intervention center account for shorter duration of hospitalization, less time to revascularisation, less interhospital transfers, less intracoronary procedures and lower costs compared to patients who present at a general center.

Prehospital triage of patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Rationale and design of the TRIAGE-ACS study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are currently transported and admitted to the nearest emergency department (ED) for risk stratification, diagnostic workup and treatment. Although such patients with NSTE-ACS can benefit from direct transfer to a PCI center for early invasive treatment, no reliable prehospital triage tools are available. Recently, the PreHEART score has been validated in the PreHEART study for prehospital triage of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. METHODS: The primary objective of the TRIAGE-ACS study, a prospective cohort study, is to determine whether prehospital triage using the PreHEART score can significantly reduce time from first medical contact to final diagnostics and revascularization in patients in need of coronary revascularization. The first cohort (control cohort; n = 500) is observatory and is used as a reference group for the second cohort. In the second cohort (interventional cohort; n = 500) patients are stratified in the ambulance for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI center, based on the PreHEART score. These two cohorts will be compared with each other. In total, 1000 patients will be included. Follow-up for endpoints will be performed by reviewing the medical record after 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years. CONCLUSION: The TRIAGE-ACS study is the first prospective study to investigate the impact of prehospital triage using the PreHEART score on time to final invasive diagnostics and treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS in need of revascularization by transferring high risk patients directly to a PCI center and patients at a low risk of having an NSTE-ACS to a non-PCI center. Such triage strategy could potentially result in optimization of regional care for all ACS patients.

Initial results and long-term clinical follow-up of an amorphous hydrogenated silicon-carbide-coated stent in daily practice.

The hemocompatibility and biocompatibility of a stent are determined by the physical and electrochemical properties of the stent surface. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility, safety and efficacy of implantation of a stent coated with silicon carbide. Baseline characteristics were collected prospectively. The occurrence of cardiac adverse events and the angina score were assessed at clinical follow-up. A total of 193 Tensum stents were implanted in 174 patients. In hospital, one patient experienced stent thrombosis and in 6% of the patients a creatinine kinase elevation to 240 U/l or more occurred. Long-term follow-up was performed in 172 patients, with a mean follow-up of 454 +/- 181 days. Ninety-seven per cent were still alive, 15% had undergone target-vessel revascularization, and 2% had angiographic restenosis and were treated with medication only. Seventy-one per cent of the patients were free of anginal complaints, and 20% had anginal complaints in Canadian Cardiac Society class I or II. The Tensum coronary stent showed to be a safe and efficacious device in this study, with a high primary success rate and favorable long-term clinical followup.