Search

Background and purpose Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients. Methods and results A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Dusseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, pGRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; pACTIONvsNCDR Conclusions In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.

BackgroundSurgical risk prediction models are routinely used to guide decision-making for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). New and updated TAVR-specific models have been developed to improve risk stratification; however, the best option remains unknown.ObjectiveTo perform a comparative validation study of six risk models for the prediction of 30-day mortality in TAVRMethods and resultsA total of 2946 patients undergoing transfemoral (TF,n = 2625) or transapical (TA,n = 321) TAVR from 2008 to 2018 from the German Rhine Transregio Aortic Diseases cohort were included. Six surgical and TAVR-specific risk scoring models (LogES I, ES II, STS PROM, FRANCE-2, OBSERVANT, GAVS-II) were evaluated for the prediction of 30-day mortality. Observed 30-day mortality was 3.7% (TF 3.2%; TA 7.5%), mean 30-day mortality risk prediction varied from 5.8 ± 5.0% (OBSERVANT) to 23.4 ± 15.9% (LogES I). Discrimination performance (ROC analysis,c-indices) ranged from 0.60 (OBSERVANT) to 0.67 (STS PROM), without significant differences between models, between TF or TA approach or over time. STS PROM discriminated numerically best in TF TAVR (c-index 0.66; range ofc-indices 0.60 to 0.66); performance was very similar in TA TAVR (LogES I, ES II, FRANCE-2 and GAVS-II all withc-index 0.67). Regarding calibration, all risk scoring models—especially LogES I—overestimated mortality risk, especially in high-risk patients.ConclusionsSurgical as well as TAVR-specific risk scoring models showed mediocre performance in prediction of 30-day mortality risk for TAVR in the German Rhine Transregio Aortic Diseases cohort. Development of new or updated risk models is necessary to improve risk stratification.Graphic abstract

Guidelines recommend adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) only in selected patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to evaluate routine GPI use in STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of routine GPI vs control therapy in STEMI. Data from retrieved studies were abstracted and evaluated in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials with 8585 patients were included: 10 trials randomized tirofiban, 9 abciximab, 1 trial eptifibatide, and 1 trial used abciximab+tirofiban; only 1 trial used dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel/ticagrelor.Routine GPI use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% [GPI] vs 3.2%; risk ratio [RR], 0.72; P = 0.01) and 6 months (3.7% vs 4.8%; RR, 0.76; P = 0.02), and a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 2.1%; RR, 0.55; P = 0.0006), repeat revascularization (2.5% vs 4.1%; RR, 0.63; P = 0.0001), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow3 after percutaneous coronary intervention (5.4% vs 8.2%; RR, 0.61; P0.0001), and ischemic stroke (RR, 0.42; P = 0.04). Major (4.7% vs 3.4%; RR, 1.35; P = 0.005) and minor bleedings (7.2% vs 5.1%; RR, 1.39; P = 0.006) but not intracranial bleedings (0.1% vs 0%; RR, 2.7; P = 0.37) were significantly increased under routine GPI.Routine GPI administration in STEMI resulted in a reduction in mortality, driven by reductions in recurrent ischemic events-however predominantly in pre-prasugrel/ticagrelor trials. Trials with contemporary STEMI management are needed to confirm these findings.

Background Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major adverse event in patients undergoing coronary angiography. The Mehran risk model is the gold-standard for CIN risk prediction. However, its performance in comparison to more contemporary National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR-AKI) risk models remains unknown. We aimed to compare both in this study. Methods and results Predictions of Mehran and NCDR-AKI risk models and clinical events of CIN and need for dialysis were assessed in a total of 2067 patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk models were compared regarding discrimination (receiver operating characteristic analysis), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and calibration (graphical and statistical analysis). The NCDR risk model showed superior risk discrimination for predicting CIN (NCDR c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.72–0.78; vs. Mehran c-index 0.69, 95% CI 0.66–0.72, p NCDRvsMehran Conclusion In German patients undergoing coronary angiography, the modern NCDR risk model for predicting contrast-induced nephropathy showed superior discrimination compared to the Mehran model while showing less accurate calibration. Results for the outcome ‘need for dialysis’ were equivocal. Graphic abstract

Background: Periprocedural uninterrupted anticoagulation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) became standard after positive results of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) trials. Previous studies of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. VKA have given controversial results. We thus aimed to elucidate the risk/benefit ratio of uninterrupted DOAC vs. VKA during catheter ablation of AF in an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing uninterrupted DOAC to VKA in patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF. Data from retrieved studies were analysed in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Primary safety outcome was major bleeding; primary efficacy outcome was stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Secondary outcomes included a composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA, minor bleeding, acute cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mortality. Results: Six eligible RCTs comprising 2,369 patients were included. There were no significant differences in DOAC vs. VKA concerning the rates of major bleeding (2.2% vs. 3.8%; odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–1.56; p = .37) and stroke or TIA (0.2% vs. 0.2%; OR 0.97, CI 0.20–4.72; p = .97). Pooled meta-analysis of secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences (OR 0.73, p = .49 for composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA; OR 1.08, p = .52 for minor bleeding; OR 1.12, p = .59 for acute cerebral lesions on MRI; and OR 0.60, p = .64 for all-cause mortality). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that uninterrupted DOAC is not superior to VKA in patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF with comparable rates of major bleeding and stroke.

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk scores for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI) are accurate outcome predictors of coronary catheterization procedures in North American populations. However, their application in German clinical practice remained elusive and we thus aimed to verify their use. NCDR scores for mortality, bleeding and AKI and corresponding clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed in patients undergoing catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or for elective coronary procedures at a German Heart Center from 2014 to 2017. Risk model performance was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curves (discrimination) and graphical analysis/logistic regression (calibration). A total of 1637 patients were included, procedures were performed for STEMI (565 patients, 34.5%), NSTEMI (572 patients, 34.9%) and elective purposes (500 patients, 30.5%); 6% (13% of STEMI and 5% of NSTEMI patients) presented in cardiogenic shock and 3% with resuscitated cardiac arrest. Radial access was used in 38% of procedures and cross-over was necessary in 5%; PCI was performed in 60% of procedures. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% (STEMI 14.5%; NSTEMI 3.7%; elective 0%) and major bleedings occurred in 5.6% (STEMI 10.6%; NSTEMI 5.4%; elective 0.2%); AKI was detected in 18.1% of patients (STEMI 23.7%; NSTEMI 27.3%; elective 1.4%), amounting to KDIGO stage I/II/III in 11.5%/3.5%/3.2%. NCDR risk models discriminated very well for mortality [AUC 0.93 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91–0.95] and well for major bleeding (AUC 0.82, CI 0.78–0.86) and any AKI (AUC 0.83, CI 0.81–0.86). Discrimination in the subgroup of patients with PCI was comparable (mortality: AUC 0.90; major bleeding: AUC 0.78; any AKI: AUC 0.79). However, calibration showed considerable underestimation of mortality and AKI in high-risk patients, while major bleeding was consistently overestimated (Hosmer–Lemeshow p

Importance Although endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is recommended by guidelines to improve functional recovery, thus far there are insufficient data on its association with mortality. Objective To identify guideline-relevant trials of EVT vs medical therapy reporting 90-day mortality and perform a meta-analysis. Data Sources All randomized clinical trials cited for recommendations on EVT vs medical therapy in the latest 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines. Study Selection Ten American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guideline–relevant randomized clinical trials of EVT vs medical therapy were selected for inclusion. Two EVT trials were excluded owing to infrequent use of EVT. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were abstracted by 2 independent investigators and double-checked by 4 others. Singular study data were integrated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and a random-effects model to compute summary statistics of risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures Risk of 90-day mortality and 90-day intracranial hemorrhage was analyzed; sensitivity analyses were performed in early-window EVT trials (which included patients from the onset of symptoms onward) vs late-window EVT trials (which included patients from 6 hours after onset of symptoms onward). Results In 10 trials with 2313 patients, EVT significantly reduced the risk for 90-day mortality by 3.7% compared with medical therapy (15.0% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98;P = .03). Trends were similar in early-window (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01;P = .06) and late-window trials only (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41-1.40;P = .38). There was no difference in the risk for intracranial hemorrhage in EVT vs medical therapy (4.2% vs 4.0%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.72;P = .65). Limitations of the studies include trial protocol heterogeneity and bias originating from prematurely terminated trials. Conclusions and Relevance This meta-analysis of all evidence on EVT cited in the 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines shows significant benefits for survival during the first 90 days after acute ischemic stroke compared with medical therapy alone.