Search

With a prevalence of 5 800 000 (≈2% of the entire populace) in 2009 and an estimated yearly incidence of 550 000, the burden of heart failure (HF) in the United States is tremendous.1 Although HF is largely a condition defined by chronic debility, virtually all patients experience, at some point, acute symptoms that trigger a visit to the emergency department (ED). These symptoms may vary in severity but, for the most part, they necessitate early intervention, often with intravenous medication and, less frequently, respiratory support. As shown by combined data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), this is a common occurrence; there are nearly 658 000 annual ED encounters primarily for acute HF in the United States—a figure that represents almost 20% of the total HF-specific ambulatory care delivered each year.2 It is noteworthy that few settings other than the ED can offer open access to treatment or provide the level and intensity of care required to effectively manage the acute phase of decompensation, also referred to as episodes of acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS). Nearly 80% of those treated for AHFS in the ED are ultimately admitted to the hospital and, accordingly, the ED serves as the principal portal of entry for hospitalized AHFS patients.34 The ED therefore plays a unique role in the continuum of AHFS treatment, functioning for most patients as the initial point of definitive healthcare contact, the location where primary stabilization is achieved, and the site where disposition decisions are generally made.4 Whereas the ED is a pivotal place for the vast majority of hospitalized patients with acute HF, the evidence base on which this foundation of acute care is built is astonishingly thin. The purpose of this …

Background— Prior studies examining thrombocytopenia among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) evaluated highly selected patients in a clinical trial setting using varying definitions of thrombocytopenia. The incidence, severity, and prognostic significance of acquired thrombocytopenia during ACS in community practice have not been well defined. Methods and Results— We examined 36 182 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS enrolled at 379 US hospitals participating in the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines (CRUSADE) quality improvement initiative between June 2004 and December 2006. Patients with baseline platelet counts 9 /L were excluded. Overall, 4697 patients (13%) developed new thrombocytopenia, defined as nadir platelet count 9 /L (referenced lower limit of normal), during their ACS hospitalization. Risks of in-hospital mortality and bleeding correlated directly with severity of thrombocytopenia; even mild thrombocytopenia (nadir 100 to 149×10 9 /L) was associated with increased risks of mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.38) and bleeding (adjusted OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 3.43 to 4.12). Each 10% drop in platelet count was associated with increased mortality and bleeding risks (adjusted ORs, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.33 to 1.46] and 1.89 [95% CI, 1.83 to 1.95], respectively). A ≥50% drop in platelet count was associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes regardless of the nadir count. A novel combined definition of acquired thrombocytopenia—nadir 9 /L or platelet count drop ≥50%—identifies a population of ACS patients at higher risk of mortality and major bleeding (adjusted ORs, 2.58 [95% CI, 2.23 to 2.98] and 4.32 [95% CI, 3.97 to 4.70], respectively). Conclusions— Thrombocytopenia, a common complication of ACS, is associated with increased mortality and bleeding risks. Even mild thrombocytopenia or a platelet count drop ≥50% in the setting of normal nadir values is clinically significant. Application of a combined definition for thrombocytopenia using both absolute and relative thresholds permits increased sensitivity for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes.

The goals of the present article are to provide a critical review of the literature on cocaine-associated chest pain and myocardial infarction (MI) and to give guidance for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Classification of recommendations and levels of evidence are expressed in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) format as follows: The Writing Committee conducted a comprehensive search of the medical literature concerning cocaine-associated chest pain and MI. The literature search included English-language publications on humans and animals from 1960 to 2007. In addition to broad-based searching concerning cocaine, specific targeted searches were performed on cocaine and the following topics: MI, chest pain, emergency department (ED), aspirin, nitroglycerin, calcium channel blocker, benzodiazepine, thrombolytics, phentolamine, heparin, primary angioplasty, ECG, and stress testing. Literature citations were generally limited to published articles listed in Index Medicus. The article was reviewed by 4 outside reviewers nominated by the AHA. Cocaine is the second most commonly used illicit drug in the United States, with only marijuana …

Myocardial infarction is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Coronary atherosclerosis is a chronic disease with stable and unstable periods. During unstable periods with activated inflammation in the vascular wall, patients may develop a myocardial infarction. Myocardial infarction may be a minor event in a lifelong chronic disease, it may even go undetected, but it may also be a major catastrophic event leading to sudden death or severe hemodynamic deterioration. A myocardial infarction may be the first manifestation of coronary artery disease, or it may occur, repeatedly, in patients with established disease. Information on myocardial infarction attack rates can provide useful data regarding the burden of coronary artery disease within and across populations, especially if standardized data are collected in a manner that demonstrates the distinction between incident and recurrent events. From the epidemiological point of view, the incidence of myocardial infarction in a population can be used as a proxy for the prevalence of coronary artery disease in that population. Furthermore, the term myocardial infarction has major psychological and legal implications for the individual and society. It is an indicator of one of the leading health problems in the world, and it is an outcome measure in clinical trials and observational studies. With these perspectives, myocardial infarction may be defined from a number of different clinical, electrocardiographic, biochemical, imaging, and pathological characteristics. In the past, a general consensus existed for the clinical syndrome designated as myocardial infarction. In studies of disease prevalence, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined myocardial infarction from symptoms, ECG abnormalities, and enzymes. However, the development of more sensitive and specific serological biomarkers and precise imaging techniques allows detection of ever smaller amounts of myocardial necrosis. Accordingly, current clinical practice, health care delivery systems, as well as epidemiology and clinical trials all require a …

Background— Age is an important determinant of outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, community practice reveals a disproportionately lower use of cardiovascular medications and invasive treatment even among elderly patients who would stand to benefit. Limited trial data are available to guide care of older adults, which results in uncertainty about benefits and risks, particularly with newer medications or invasive treatments and in the setting of advanced age and complex health status. Methods and Results— Part II of this American Heart Association scientific statement summarizes evidence on presentation and treatment of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction in relation to age ( Conclusions— Few trials have adequately described treatment effects in older patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. In the future, absolute and relative risks for efficacy and safety in age subgroups should be reported, and trials should make efforts to enroll the elderly in proportion to their prevalence among the treated population. Outcomes of particular relevance to the older adult, such as quality of life, physical function, and independence, should also be evaluated, and geriatric conditions unique to this age group, such as frailty and cognitive impairment, should be considered for their influence on care and outcomes. With these efforts, treatment risks can be minimized, and benefits can be placed within the health context of the elderly patient.

Background— Age is an important determinant of outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS); however, community practice reveals a disproportionately lower use of cardiovascular medications and invasive treatment even among elderly patients with ACS who would stand to benefit. Reasons include limited trial data to guide the care of older adults and uncertainty about benefits and risks, particularly with newer medications or invasive treatments and in the setting of advanced age or complex health status. Methods and Results— This 2-part American Heart Association scientific statement summarizes evidence on patient heterogeneity, clinical presentation, and treatment of non–ST-elevation ACS in relation to age ( Conclusions— Although a few recent trials have described treatment effects in older patients, others continue to exclude patients on the basis of age. Going forward, prospective trials should enroll elderly subjects proportionate to their prevalence among the treated population to define risk and benefit. Findings from age subgroup analyses should be reported in a consistent manner across trials, including absolute and relative risks for efficacy and safety. Outcomes of particular relevance to the elderly, such as quality of life, physical function, and independence, should also be considered. Creatinine clearance should be calculated for every elderly patient to enable appropriate dosing. In addition, physicians need an understanding of conditions unique to older patients (eg, frailty, cognitive impairment) that influence treatment goals and outcomes. With these efforts, treatment risks can be minimized, and benefits can be placed in the health context of the elderly patient with ACS.

Background— Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors are beneficial in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS); their safe use in women, however, remains a concern. The contribution of dosing to the observed sex-related differences in bleeding is unknown. Methods and Results— We explored the relationship between patient sex, GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor use, dose, and bleeding in 32 601 patients with NSTE ACS across 400 CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) hospitals, of whom 18 436 were treated. GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor dose was defined as excessive if not reduced when creatinine clearance was P P P Conclusions— Women experience more bleeding than men whether or not they are treated with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors; however, because of frequent excessive dosing in women, up to one fourth of this sex-related risk difference in bleeding is avoidable. Appropriate dosing will improve care of all patients with NSTE ACS, with a particular benefit for women.

Background— Black patients with acute myocardial infarction are less likely than whites to receive coronary interventions. It is unknown whether racial disparities exist for other treatments for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) and how different treatments affect outcomes. Methods and Results— Using data from 400 US hospitals participating in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines?) National Quality Improvement Initiative, we identified black and white patients with high-risk NSTE ACS (positive cardiac markers and/or ischemic ST-segment changes). After adjustment for demographics and medical comorbidity, we compared the use of therapies recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for NSTE ACS and outcomes by race. Our study included 37 813 (87.3%) white and 5504 (12.7%) black patients. Black patients were younger; were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and renal insufficiency; and were less likely to have insurance coverage or primary cardiology care. Black patients had a similar or higher likelihood than whites of receiving older ACS treatments such as aspirin, β-blockers, or ACE inhibitors but were significantly less likely to receive newer ACS therapies, including acute glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, acute and discharge clopidogrel, and statin therapy at discharge. Blacks were also less likely to receive cardiac catheterization, revascularization procedures, or smoking cessation counseling. Acute risk-adjusted outcomes were similar between black and white patients. Conclusions— Black patients with NSTE ACS were less likely than whites to receive many evidence-based treatments, particularly those that are costly or newer. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of these treatment disparities on clinical outcomes.

Medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States and are estimated to account for somewhere between 44 000 and 98 000 deaths in the United States each year.1 An exact number of deaths remains both uncertain and controversial, with arguments that the actual figure may be lower2 or higher.3 Each year in the United States, the estimated 450 000 preventable medication-related adverse events cost $3.5 billion.4 In the Health Grades Inc Patient Safety in American Hospitals study, which examined 37 million patient records, it was estimated that 195 000 Medicare patients die due to preventable, in-hospital medical errors annually.3 Medication errors are the most common type of medical error, and cardiovascular medications prescribed to inpatients account for a large proportion of these errors. An average of 1 medication error occurs per hospitalized patient per day, and one quarter of all medication-related injuries are preventable. The emergency department (ED) and acute hospital setting remain locations at high risk for medication errors. Since the Institute of Medicine’s 2000 report, “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” there has been heightened awareness of medical and medication errors.1 In 2001, Congress appropriated $50 million for major initiatives in patient safety and directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to establish the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. The following year, the American Heart Association (AHA) issued its first scientific statement on medication errors in acute cardiac care.5 In 2003, Congress passed the Medicine Modernization Act to charge the Institute of Medicine with formulating a national agenda aimed at reducing medication errors. In these early years after the Institute of Medicine’s report, the topic of patient safety became a frequent focus for healthcare leaders, journalists, and concerned citizens. Although …

Clinical case: A 58-year-old woman called 9-1-1 with acute onset of chest pain that had persisted for 30 minutes. She had a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus but no previous history of myocardial infarction or heart failure. Her medications included aspirin, atorvastatin, lisinopril, and metoprolol. Paramedics were dispatched, and a prehospital ECG demonstrated 3- to 4-mm ST-segment elevation in leads I, aVL, and V2 through V6 (Figure 1). Her examination revealed a regular pulse of 90 bpm, a blood pressure of 100/60 mm Hg, clear lungs, and normal heart sounds with no murmurs. Paramedics interpreted the prehospital ECG and activated the catheterization laboratory en route to the hospital. On hospital arrival, the patient was transported directly to the catheterization laboratory. Coronary angiography demonstrated an occluded proximal left anterior descending artery, which was successfully treated with balloon angioplasty and a stent. The pertinent time intervals were as follows: paramedic dispatch to balloon time, 56 minutes; paramedic arrival at the scene to balloon time, 46 minutes; hospital door to balloon time, 23 minutes. Her biomarkers revealed a peak troponin T of 2.42 ng/mL and a peak creatine kinase muscle-brain isoenzyme of 26.8 ng/mL. An echocardiogram demonstrated normal left ventricular ejection fraction of 55%, with mild anterior hypokinesis, and the patient was discharged on hospital day 3. Figure 1. Prehospital ECG. American Heart Association national guidelines,1–3 as well as other consensus and scientific statements,4–11 recommend that emergency medical services (EMS) acquire and use prehospital ECGs to evaluate patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Despite these recommendations, prehospital ECGs are used in fewer than 10% of patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI),12,13 and this rate has not substantially changed since the mid-1990s. Furthermore, even when a prehospital ECG is acquired, the information is often not …

Background : Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a mainstay in the treatment of ACS, but failure to adjust UFH dosing based on pt weight is common. Methods : We used data from 31,445 high-risk ACS pts in 420 CRUSADE hospitals to assess initial UFH bolus and infusion doses relative to guidelines recommendations (60–70 U/Kg bolus and 12–15 U/Kg/h infusion). We evaluated the following: UFH excess dosing (>70 U/kg bolus or >15 U/kg/min infusion) vs. no excess dosing; excess dosing and major bleeding, overall and in subgroups; and factors associated with excess dosing. Results : An excess dose of UFH was given 35% of the time (8.9% excess infusion, 9.0% excess bolus, 17.1% both); more often to women, elderly, and those with low body weight (Figure). There was a digit preference for bolus doses of 5000 U (37%), and infusion doses of 1000 U/h (45%). The factors most associated with excess dosing were older age (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08–1.15) and female sex (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33–1.59). Although individually excess bolus (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.06) and excess infusion (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.28) each contribute to bleeding, considered together only excess infusion remained significantly associated with bleeding (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01–1.26). Although women and elderly bleed more, the relationship between UFH dose (bolus and infusion individually) and major bleeding did not vary across sex and age. Conclusion : In high-risk NSTE ACS pts, both UFH bolus and infusion dosing is often outside the recommended range. Excess dosing is common among elderly and women and is related to increased bleeding. Attention to dosing by weight rather than one-size-fits-all bolus and infusion dosing should improve safety in the use of UFH.

Background— Since the broad dissemination of practice guidelines, the association of specialty care with the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes has not been studied. Methods and Results— We evaluated 55 994 patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ischemic ST-segment changes and/or positive cardiac markers) included in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Quality Improvement Initiative from January 2001 through September 2003 at 301 tertiary US hospitals with full revascularization capabilities. We compared baseline characteristics, the use of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines class I recommendations, and in-hospital outcomes by the specialty of the primary in-patient service (cardiology versus noncardiology). A total of 35 374 patients (63.2%) were primarily cared for by a cardiology service, and these patients had lower-risk clinical characteristics, but they more commonly received acute (≤24 hours) medications, invasive cardiac procedures, and discharge medications and lifestyle interventions. Acute care processes were improved when care was provided by a cardiology service regardless of the propensity to receive cardiology care. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality was lower with care provided by a cardiology service (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.88), and adjustment for differences in the use of acute medications and invasive procedures partially attenuated this mortality difference (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.02). Conclusions— Non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients primarily cared for by a cardiology inpatient service more commonly received evidence-based treatments and had a lower risk of mortality, but these patients had lower-risk clinical characteristics. Results from the present analysis highlight the difficulties with accurately determining how specialty care is associated with treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Novel methodologies for evaluating the influence of specialty care for these patients need to be developed and applied to future studies.

Central to the development of systems and centers of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients will be the key role played by emergency medical services (EMS) at entry into the system and within the system when emergency interhospital transport is required.

In the United States each year, >5.3 million patients present to emergency departments with chest discomfort and related symptoms. Ultimately, >1.4 million individuals are hospitalized for unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. For emergency physicians and cardiologists alike, these patients represent an enormous challenge to accurately diagnose and appropriately treat. This update of the 2002 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (UA/NSTEMI) provides an evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and treatment of these patients in the emergency department, in-hospital, and after hospital discharge. Despite publication of the guidelines several years ago, many patients with UA/NSTEMI still do not receive guidelines-indicated therapy.

Background —Earlier, rapid evaluation in chest pain units may make patient care more efficient. A multimarker strategy (MMS) testing for several markers of myocardial necrosis with different time-to-positivity profiles also may offer clinical advantages. Methods and Results —We prospectively compared bedside quantitative multimarker testing versus local laboratory results (LL) in 1005 patients in 6 chest pain units. Myoglobin, creatine kinase-MB, and troponin I were measured at 0, 3, 6, 9 to 12, and 16 to 24 hours after admission. Two MMS were defined: MMS-1 (all 3 markers) and MMS-2 (creatine kinase-MB and troponin I only). The primary assessment was to relate marker status with 30-day death or infarction. More patients were positive by 24 hours with MMS than with LL (MMS-1, 23.9%; MMS-2, 18.8%; LL, 8.8%; P =0.001, all comparisons), and they became positive sooner with MMS-1 (2.5 hours, P =0.023 versus LL) versus MMS-2 (2.8 hours, P =0.026 versus LL) or LL (3.4 hours). The relation between baseline MMS status and 30-day death or infarction was stronger (MMS-1: positive, 18.8% event rate versus negative, 3.0%, P =0.001; MMS-2: 21.9% versus 3.2%, P =0.001) than that for LL (13.6% versus 5.5%, P =0.038). MMS-1 discriminated 30-day death better (positive, 2.0% versus negative, 0.0%, P =0.007) than MMS-2 (positive, 1.8% versus negative, 0.2%; P =0.055) or LL (positive, 0.0% versus negative, 0.5%; P =1.000). Conclusions —Rapid multimarker analysis identifies positive patients earlier and provides better risk stratification for mortality than a local laboratory-based, single-marker approach.