Different cardiac biomarkers to detect peri-procedural myocardial infarction in contemporary coronary stent trials: impact on outcome reporting

To assess the differential implications of cardiac biomarker type on peri-procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) reporting.

Long-term safety and feasibility of three-vessel multimodality intravascular imaging in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the IBIS-4 (integrated biomarker and imaging study) substudy.

We assessed the feasibility and the procedural and long-term safety of intracoronary (i.c) imaging for documentary purposes with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI in the setting of IBIS-4 study. IBIS4 (NCT00962416) is a prospective cohort study conducted at five European centers including 103 STEMI patients who underwent serial three-vessel coronary imaging during primary PCI and at 13 months. The feasibility parameter was successful imaging, defined as the number of pullbacks suitable for analysis. Safety parameters included the frequency of peri-procedural complications, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and any clinically-indicated revascularization at 2 years. Clinical outcomes were compared with the results from a cohort of 485 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI without additional imaging. Imaging of the infarct-related artery at baseline (and follow-up) was successful in 92.2 % (96.6 %) of patients using OCT and in 93.2 % (95.5 %) using IVUS. Imaging of the non-infarct-related vessels was successful in 88.7 % (95.6 %) using OCT and in 90.5 % (93.3 %) using IVUS. Periprocedural complications occurred <2.0 % of OCT and none during IVUS. There were no differences throughout 2 years between the imaging and control group in terms of MACE (16.7 vs. 13.3 %, adjusted HR1.40, 95 % CI 0.77-2.52, p = 0.27). Multi-modality three-vessel i.c. imaging in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI is consistent a high degree of success and can be performed safely without impact on cardiovascular events at long-term follow-up.

Biomarker-guided personalised emergency medicine for all - hope for another hype?

Polymorbid patients, diverse diagnostic and therapeutic options, more complex hospital structures, financial incentives, benchmarking, as well as perceptional and societal changes put pressure on medical doctors, specifically if medical errors surface. This is particularly true for the emergency department setting, where patients face delayed or erroneous initial diagnostic or therapeutic measures and costly hospital stays due to sub-optimal triage. A "biomarker" is any laboratory tool with the potential better to detect and characterise diseases, to simplify complex clinical algorithms and to improve clinical problem solving in routine care. They must be embedded in clinical algorithms to complement and not replace basic medical skills. Unselected ordering of laboratory tests and shortcomings in test performance and interpretation contribute to diagnostic errors. Test results may be ambiguous with false positive or false negative results and generate unnecessary harm and costs. Laboratory tests should only be ordered, if results have clinical consequences. In studies, we must move beyond the observational reporting and meta-analysing of diagnostic accuracies for biomarkers. Instead, specific cut-off ranges should be proposed and intervention studies conducted to prove outcome relevant impacts on patient care. The focus of this review is to exemplify the appropriate use of selected laboratory tests in the emergency setting for which randomised-controlled intervention studies have proven clinical benefit. Herein, we focus on initial patient triage and allocation of treatment opportunities in patients with cardiorespiratory diseases in the emergency department. The following five biomarkers will be discussed: proadrenomedullin for prognostic triage assessment and site-of-care decisions, cardiac troponin for acute myocardial infarction, natriuretic peptides for acute heart failure, D-dimers for venous thromboembolism, C-reactive protein as a marker of inflammation, and procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in infections of the respiratory tract and sepsis. For these markers we provide an overview on physiopathology, historical evolution of evidence, strengths and limitations for a rational implementation into clinical algorithms. We critically discuss results from key intervention trials that led to their use in clinical routine and potential future indications. The rational for the use of all these biomarkers, first, tackle diagnostic ambiguity and consecutive defensive medicine, second, delayed and sub-optimal therapeutic decisions, and third, prognostic uncertainty with misguided triage and site-of-care decisions all contributing to the waste of our limited health care resources. A multifaceted approach for a more targeted management of medical patients from emergency admission to discharge including biomarkers, will translate into better resource use, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced overall costs, improved patients satisfaction and outcomes in terms of mortality and re-hospitalisation. Hopefully, the concepts outlined in this review will help the reader to improve their diagnostic skills and become more parsimonious laboratory test requesters.

NT-proBNP in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Results from the FINNRESUSCI Study

AIM To assess whether the established cardiovascular biomarker N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) provides prognostic information in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (OHCA-VT/VF). METHODS We measured NT-proBNP levels in 155 patients with OHCA-VT/VF enrolled into a prospective multicenter observational study in 21 ICUs in Finland. Blood samples were drawn <6h of OHCA-VT/VF and later after 24h, 48h, and 96h. The end-points were mortality and neurological outcome classified according to Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) after one year. NT-proBNP levels were compared to high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) levels and established risk scores. RESULTS NT-proBNP levels were higher in non-survivors compared to survivors on study inclusion (median 1003 [quartile (Q) 1-3 502-2457] vs. 527 [179-1284]ng/L, p=0.001) and after 24h (1913 [1012-4573] vs. 1080 [519-2210]ng/L, p<0.001). NT-proBNP levels increased from baseline to 96h after ICU admission (p<0.001). NT-proBNP levels were significantly correlated to hs-TnT levels after 24h (rho=0.27, p=0.001), but not to hs-TnT levels on study inclusion (rho=0.05, p=0.67). NT-proBNP levels at all time points were associated with clinical outcome, but only NT-proBNP levels after 24h predicted mortality and poor neurological outcome, defined as CPC 3-5, in models that adjusted for SAPS II and SOFA scores. hs-TnT levels did not add prognostic information to NT-proBNP measurements alone. CONCLUSION NT-proBNP levels at 24h improved risk assessment for poor outcome after one year on top of established risk indices, while hs-TnT measurements did not further add to risk prediction.