Search

Objectives: To (1) pilot a study of behavioural characterisation based on risk and time preferences in clinically well-characterised individuals, (2) assess the distribution of preferences in this population and (3) explore differences in preferences between individuals with 'lifestyle-related' (LS) and 'non-lifestyle-related' (NLS) cardiovascular diseases., Design: Cross-sectional study with an economic online experiment to collect risk and time preferences, a detailed clinical characterisation and a sociodemographic and lifestyle survey. A definition of LS and NLS groups was developed., Setting: Specialist outpatient clinics of the clinic for cardiology and pneumology of the University Hospital Düsseldorf and patients from a cardiology practice in Düsseldorf., Participants: A total of 74 individuals with cardiovascular diseases., Outcomes: Risk and time preferences., Results: The implementation of the study process, including participant recruitment and data collection, ran smoothly. The medical checklist, the survey and the time preference instrument were well received. However, the conceptual understanding of the risk preference instrument resulted in inconsistent choices for many participants (47%). The remaining individuals were more risk averse (27%) than risk seeking (16%) and risk neutral (10%). Individuals in our sample were also more impatient (49%) than patient (42%). The participant classification showed that 65% belonged to the LS group, 19% to the NLS group and 16% could not be assigned (unclear allocation to lifestyle (ULS) group). Excluding the ULS group, we show that individuals in the LS group were more risk seeking, and unexpectedly, more patient than those in the NLS group., Conclusions: The process of the pilot study and its results can be used as a basis for the design of the main study. The differences in risk and time preferences between the LS and NLS groups provide us with a novel hypothesis for unhealthy behaviours: individuals never give up a bad habit, they simply postpone the latter, which can be tested alongside other additional research questions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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 Düsseldorf (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, p GRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; p ACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; p GRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (p GRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, p GRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); p GRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models., 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare: no support from any industry or third-party organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation have increased risks for stroke and bleeding under oral anticoagulation (OAC). We investigated an alternative therapy of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in CKD patients in this study. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LAAO were included in a retrospective analysis and stratified for kidney function into CKD/Non-CKD groups (cutoff eGFR 60 ml/min). Procedural characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events were analysed and compared between groups. Results: LAAO was performed in 146 patients (81 CKD; 65 Non-CKD), mean follow-up was 391 days. Groups differed in eGFR (40.1 (CKD) vs. 75.1 (Non-CKD) ml/min) and CHA 2 DS 2 VASc scores (4.65 ± 1.3 (CKD) vs. 4.06 ± 1.4 (Non-CKD)). Procedural success was 98.6%, contrast-induced acute kidney injury was significantly more frequent in CKD patients (11.1% vs. 0%; p  = .004). Follow-up mortality was higher in CKD (10.5/100 PY vs. 4.2/100 PY; p  = .156). Follow-up stroke rates were 2.3/100 (CKD) patient-years (PY) and 1.4/100 PY (Non-CKD) ( p  = 1.000), corresponding to a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 60% (all), 68% (CKD) and 71% (Non-CKD) compared to expected stroke rates. Follow-up major bleeding rates were 3.5/100 PY (CKD) and 4.2/100 PY (Non-CKD), corresponding to RRR of 57% (all), 61% (CKD) and 53% (Non-CKD) compared to OAC. Conclusions: Left atrial appendage occlusion shows comparable efficacy for stroke and bleeding prevention in CKD and Non-CKD patients. CKD patients experience more adverse events during follow-up and a significantly increased risk for periprocedural contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

Background and Purpose: 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., Methods: 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)., Results: 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 < 0.02 for all outcomes)., Conclusions: The NCDR risk models showed excellent performance in discriminating high-risk from low-risk patients in contemporary German interventional cardiology. Model calibration for adverse event probability prediction, however, is limited and demands recalibration, especially in high-risk patients.