Improving risk stratification in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with combined assessment of GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is fundamental in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), enabling estimation of prognosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether the combined use of GRACE and CRUSADE risk stratification schemes in patients with myocardial infarction outperforms each of the scores individually in terms of mortality and haemorrhagic risk prediction. METHODS: Observational retrospective single-centre cohort study including 566 consecutive patients admitted for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The CRUSADE model increased GRACE discriminatory performance in predicting all-cause mortality, ascertained by Cox regression, demonstrating CRUSADE independent and additive predictive value, which was sustained throughout follow-up. The cohort was divided into four different subgroups: G1 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE<41); G2 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE≥41); G3 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE<41); G4 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE≥41). RESULTS: Outcomes and variables estimating clinical severity, such as admission Killip-Kimbal class and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, deteriorated progressively throughout the subgroups (G1 to G4). Survival analysis differentiated three risk strata (G1, lowest risk; G2 and G3, intermediate risk; G4, highest risk). The GRACE+CRUSADE model revealed higher prognostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.76) than GRACE alone (AUC 0.70) for mortality prediction, further confirmed by the integrated discrimination improvement index. Moreover, GRACE+CRUSADE combined risk assessment seemed to be valuable in delineating bleeding risk in this setting, identifying G4 as a very high-risk subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined risk stratification with GRACE and CRUSADE scores can improve the individual discriminatory power of GRACE and CRUSADE models in the prediction of all-cause mortality and bleeding. This combined assessment is a practical approach that is potentially advantageous in treatment decision-making.

Capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified and indeterminate colitis serologically negative

BACKGROUND: The value of capsule endoscopy in the setting of inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified (IBDU) and indeterminate colitis (IC) remains obscure. The aim was to evaluate the clinical impact of capsule endoscopy on IBDU/IC patients with negative serology. METHODS: Eighteen patients with long-standing IBDU (n = 14) and IC (n = 4) were enrolled to undergo a capsule endoscopy and then followed prospectively. Lesions considered diagnostic of Crohn's disease (CD) were 4 or more erosions/ulcers and/or a stricture. The median follow-up time after capsule endoscopy was 32 ± 11 months (23-54 months). RESULTS: Total enteroscopy was possible in all patients. In 2 patients the examination was normal (Group 1). In 9 patients subtle findings were observed (Group 2): focal villi denudation (n = 1) and fewer than 4 erosions/ulcers (n = 8). In 7 patients, 4 or more erosions/ulcers were detected (Group 3), leading to a diagnosis of CD. However, their treatment was not reassessed on the basis of the capsule findings. Until now, a definitive diagnosis has been achieved in 2 additional patients: 1 from Group 1 (ulcerative colitis) and another patient from Group 2 (CD), who began infliximab infusions. Nine patients remained indeterminate at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although capsule endoscopy enabled the diagnosis of CD in 7 patients, in none of them was the clinical management changed. Moreover, a change in therapy due to a diagnosis of CD was made for only 1 patient, who presented nonspecific findings. Our results suggest that capsule findings are not helpful in the work-up of these patients

The effect of metoclopramide in capsule enteroscopy

Clinical utility of prokinetics in capsule endoscopy (CE) is not clearly established. The objective of this prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial was to determine if metoclopramide is useful in CE by increasing the rate of complete enteroscopy. Ninety-five patients referred for CE were randomized to no metoclopramide (group B, n = 48) or 10 mg metoclopramide (group A, n = 47). Complete enteroscopy was possible in 38 patients of group A (80.9%) and 37 of group B (77.1%) (P = 0.422) with two cases of gastric retention in group B (4.2%; P = 0.253). Median gastric transit time was 26 min (1-211) in group A and 28 min (4-200) in group B (P = 0.511). Mean small bowel transit time, calculated after excluding 20 patients with incomplete enteroscopy, was similar in both groups (221.2 +/- 89 min vs. 256 +/- 82.2 min; P = 0.083). There were also no differences in the total number of findings (group A 4.5 +/- 4.7; group B 4.7 +/- 3.7, P = 0.815). Administration of 10 mg metoclopramide orally 15 min before capsule ingestion did not significantly increase the rate of total enteroscopies and had no effect on transit times. It also did not modify CE diagnostic yield.