Search

The article discusses the importance of prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center in patients suspected of having non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Currently, risk stratification and triage are not performed in the prehospital setting for these patients, leading to delays in revascularization, longer hospital stays, and increased healthcare costs. The study evaluates the use of the preHEART score, a tool for risk stratification, in determining the need for direct transfer to a PCI center. The results show that prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer based on the preHEART score reduce the time to final invasive diagnostics and revascularization, shorten hospital stays, and decrease healthcare costs for patients with NSTE-ACS. The TRIAGE-ACS study examined the impact of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI center on patients with suspected non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). The study found that this approach resulted in shorter time to invasive diagnostics and revascularization, reduced need for double invasive procedures, fewer inter-hospital transfers, shorter hospital stays, and decreased healthcare costs. The use of the preHEART score for risk assessment was found to be accurate and efficient. The study suggests that prehospital risk stratification and triage can optimize the diagnostic chain for NSTE-ACS patients and improve outcomes. The document is a supplemental material for a study on prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to [Extracted from the article]

A study to find that if manual Thrombus aspiration was more effective as compared to normal conventional treatment during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is conducted. Results indicate that Thrombus aspiration was more effective in the treatment of PCI than conventional methods.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The optimal antithrombotic management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who require oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. Current guidelines recommend dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT; OAC plus P2Y 12 inhibitor - preferably clopidogrel) after a short course of triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT; DAT plus aspirin). Although DAT reduces bleeding risk compared to TAT, this is counterbalanced by an increase in ischaemic events. Aspirin provides early ischaemic benefit, but TAT is associated with an increased haemorrhagic burden; therefore, we propose a 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus P2Y 12 inhibitor) strategy post-PCI, temporarily omitting OAC. The study aims to compare bleeding and ischaemic risk between a 30-day DAPT strategy following PCI and a guideline-directed therapy in AF patients requiring OAC. WOEST-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04436978) is an investigator-initiated, international, open-label, randomised controlled trial (RCT). AF patients requiring OAC who have undergone successful PCI will be randomised within 72 hours after PCI to guideline-directed therapy (edoxaban plus P2Y 12 inhibitor plus limited duration of aspirin) or a 30-day DAPT strategy (P2Y 12 inhibitor plus aspirin, immediately discontinuing OAC) followed by DAT (edoxaban plus P2Y 12 inhibitor). With a sample size of 2,000 patients, this trial is powered to assess both superiority for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding and non-inferiority for a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism or stent thrombosis. In summary, the WOEST-3 trial is the first RCT temporarily omitting OAC in AF patients, comparing a 30-day DAPT strategy with guideline-directed therapy post-PCI to reduce bleeding events without hampering efficacy.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the safety of selective intracoronary hypothermia during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Background: Selective intracoronary hypothermia is a novel treatment designed to reduce myocardial reperfusion injury and is currently being investigated in the ongoing randomized controlled EURO-ICE (European Intracoronary Cooling Evaluation in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial (NCT03447834). Data on the safety of such a procedure during PPCI are still limited., Methods: The first 50 patients with anterior STEMI treated with selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI were included in this analysis and compared for safety with the first 50 patients randomized to the control group undergoing standard PPCI. In-hospital mortality, occurrence of rhythm or conduction disturbances, stent thrombosis, onset of heart failure during the procedure, and subsequent hospital admission were assessed., Results: In-hospital mortality was 0%. One patient in both groups developed cardiogenic shock. Atrial fibrillation occurred in 0 and 3 patients (P = 0.24), and ventricular fibrillation occurred in 5 and 3 patients (P = 0.72) in the intracoronary hypothermia group and control group, respectively. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients in the intracoronary hypothermia group; 1 instance was intraprocedural, and the other occurred following interruption of dual-antiplatelet therapy consequent to an intracranial hemorrhage 6 days after enrollment. No stent thrombosis was observed in the control group (P = 0.50)., Conclusions: Selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI in patients with anterior STEMI can be implemented within the routine of PPCI and seems to be safe. The final safety results will be reported at the end of the trial., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Engstrøm has received personal fees from Abbott and Bayer, outside the submitted work. Dr Oldroyd has received employee fees from Biosensors International, outside the submitted work. Dr Karamasis has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. Dr Keeble has received grants from Abbott Vascular, Zoll, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr De Bruyne has received grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and St. Jude Medical; has received consulting fees from St. Jude Medical, Opsens, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; and is a shareholder in Siemens, GE, Bayer, Philips, HeartFlow, Edwards Lifesciences, and Ceyliad. Dr Berry has received grants from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coroventis, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Medyria, Neovasc, Novartis, Siemens Healthcare, and Menarini, outside the submitted work; and is supported by research funding from the British Heart Foundation (RE/18/6134217). Dr Pijls has received personal fees from Abbott and Opsens; holds equity in Philips, ASML, HeartFlow and GE Healthcare; and has received institutional research grants from Abbott and Hexacath. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a widely practised therapeutic procedure to treat ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, a significant proportion of patients undergoing primary PCI suffers from adverse events, such as incomplete myocardial reperfusion. It is currently unknown to which degree these adverse events are operator related., Methods and Results: We investigated inter-operator variation using objective safety and efficacy endpoints during primary PCI for STEMI. All PCIs were performed by six experienced interventional cardiologists as part of a randomised single centre trial. The primary endpoint of this study was optimal myocardial reperfusion (myocardial blush grade 3 [MBG]). All 1,071 patients enrolled in the Thrombus Aspiration during Percutaneous coronary intervention in Acute myocardial infarction Study (TAPAS) were included in this analysis. In the six operator groups, the rate of the primary endpoint MBG 3 ranged between 29.2% and 55.5%. The variable for operators remained significantly associated with MBG 3 after adjustment for baseline and procedural differences. There were no statistical differences observed with regard to safety endpoints., Conclusions: This study illustrates the observation that even in a controlled setting significant inter-operator variation may exist in the efficacy of primary PCI. This study supports the routine collection of high-quality datasets to evaluate and improve individual operator competence and skills.

Thrombus aspiration is an effective adjunctive therapy to prevent distal embolization during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In some patients, thrombus aspiration results in complete restoration of flow without significant residual stenosis or plaque rupture at the site of occlusion. It is currently unclear if additional angioplasty with balloon or stenting is necessary in these patients. We present 5 cases in which thrombus aspiration was performed without additional angioplasty as treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. During follow up, no patient had an adverse cardiac event. These cases indicate that thrombus aspiration can be performed safely and effectively as definitive treatment in selected patients.