Validity of Charlson Comorbidity Index in patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome. Insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus registry 2002-2012.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of individual comorbid conditions as well as the weight assignment, predictive properties and discriminating power of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) on outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A prospective multicentre observational study (AMIS Plus Registry) from 69 Swiss hospitals with 29 620 ACS patients enrolled from 2002 to 2012. The main outcome measures were in-hospital and 1-year follow-up mortality. RESULTS: Of the patients, 27% were female (age 72.1 ± 12.6 years) and 73% were male (64.2 ± 12.9 years). 46.8% had comorbidities and they were less likely to receive guideline-recommended drug therapy and reperfusion. Heart failure (adjusted OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.25), metastatic tumours (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.60 to 3.19), renal diseases (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.11) and diabetes (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.54) were strong predictors of in-hospital mortality. In this population, CCI weighted the history of prior myocardial infarction higher (1 instead of -0.4, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.3 points) but heart failure (1 instead of 3.7, 95% CI 2.6 to 4.7) and renal disease (2 instead of 3.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 4.4) lower than the benchmark, where all comorbidities, age and gender were used as predictors. However, the model with CCI and age has an identical discrimination to this benchmark (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were both 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities greatly influenced clinical presentation, therapies received and the outcome of patients admitted with ACS. Heart failure, diabetes, renal disease or metastatic tumours had a major impact on mortality. CCI seems to be an appropriate prognostic indicator for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in ACS patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01305785.

Prevalence of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients Suspected for Pulmonary Embolism or Acute Aortic Syndromes: Rational for "Double" and "Triple" Rule-Out Concepts

PURPOSE To evaluate the prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients presenting initially with atypical chest pain and suspected to have pulmonary embolism (PE) or acute aortic syndromes (AAS). To evaluate the overlap between ACS, PE and AAS in routine practice and determine how many patients could have benefit from a single CT protocol to rule out ACS at the same time as PE and AAS. METHOD AND MATERIALS Our electronic hospital database revealed 1122 consecutive patients who underwent a thoracic CT angiography for PE or AAS from 2004 to 2006 (mean age, 63±13 years). Patients without chest pain were excluded from this study. Thus, 447 patients presented with isolated atypical chest were included in the analysis. All patients who underwent a thoracic CT scan previously received standard clinical care and were initially considered as non ACS. The final diagnosis was obtained by the hospital stay report. RESULTS Among the 447 patients with atypical chest pain, 25 (5.5%) were finally found to have ACS: 19 patients (4.2%) were suspected for PE and 6 (1. 3%) were suspected for AAS. There were 90 patients diagnosed to have PE, 89 (98.8%) of them were suspected for PE while only 1 (1%) was suspected for AAS. Eleven patients diagnosed to have AAS, 9 (82%) of them were suspected for AAS while 2 (18%) were suspected for PE. CONCLUSION In clinical practice, the overlap between PE, AAS and ACS is limited which make the triple rule-out studies less recommended to be done at the time being because of the high dose radiation. A double rule-out investigation is suggested to be done for patients being evaluated for atypical chest pain and suspected of having AAS or PE because of a significant overlap between the two entities as well it doesn't implicate any increment in radiation dose. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/APPLICATION With 64-slice CT, coronary circulation and total chest can be evaluated at the same time offering new opportunitie for the evaluation of three major life-threatening conditions :ACS,PE and AAS.

Impact of medical practice guidelines on the assessment of patients with acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST segment elevation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of introducing clinical practice guidelines on acute coronary syndrome without persistent ST segment elevation (ACS) on patient initial assessment. DESIGN: Prospective before-after evaluation over a 3-month period. SETTING: The emergency ward of a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients with ACS evaluated in the emergency ward over the two 3-month periods. INTERVENTION: Implementation of the practice guidelines, and the addition of a cardiology consultant to the emergency team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis, electrocardiogram interpretation, and risk stratification after the initial evaluation. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the 328 and 364 patients evaluated in the emergency ward for suspicion of ACS before and after guideline implementation were similar. Significantly more patients were classified as suffering from atypical chest pain (39.6% versus 47.0%; P = 0.006) after guideline implementation. Guidelines availability was associated with significantly more formal diagnoses (79.9% versus 92.9%; P < 0.0001) and risk stratification (53.7% versus 65.4%, P < 0.0001) at the end of initial assessment. CONCLUSION: Guidelines implementation, along with availability of a cardiology consultant in the emergency room had a positive impact on initial assessment of patients evaluated for suspicion of ACS. It led to increased confidence in diagnosis and stratification by risk, which are the first steps in initiating effective treatment for this common condition.

Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndrome in hospitals of different sizes in Switzerland

Objective: To assess the impact of patient admission in different hospital types in Switzerland on early in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Methods: From 1997 to 2009, 31,010 ACS patients from 76 Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry. Large tertiary teaching institutions with 24 hour/7 day cardiac catheterization facilities were classified as type A hospitals, all others as type B. One-year outcome was studied in a subgroup of patients admitted after 2005. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds ratios (OR with 95%CI) for independent predictors of mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).Results: There were 11 type A hospitals with admissions of 15,987 (52%) patients and 65 type B hospitals with 15,023 (48%) patients. Patients initially admitted into B hospitals were older, more frequently female, hypertensive and diabetic, had more severe comorbidities and more frequently NSTE-ACS/UA. They were less likely to receive aspirin, clopidogrel and GPIIb/IIIa antagonists. STE-ACS patients initially admitted into B hospitals received more thrombolysis than those admitted into A hospitals, but less percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). From the patients admitted to B hospitals, 5271 (35%) were transferred for intervention. Crude in-hospital mortality and MACE were higher in patients from B hospitals. Crude 1-year mortality of 3747 ACS patients followed up was higher in patients initially admitted into B hospitals, but no differences were found for MACE. Hospital type, after adjustment for age, risk factors, type of ACS and co-morbidities, was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.94; 0.76-1.16), in-hospital MACE (0.98; 0.82-1.17), 1-year mortality or 1-year MACE (1.06; 0.85-1.33). Analysis of the time of admission indicated a crude outcome in favor of hospitalization during duty-hours but no significant effect could be documented for 1-year outcome.Conclusion: ACS patients admitted to type B hospitals were older, had more severe co-morbidities, more NSTEACS and received less intensive treatment. However, after correcting for baseline inequalities, early and mid-term outcomes were similar regardless of hospital type. Ultimate patient outcome thus does not appear to be influenced by the type of hospital where the initial admission takes place. Appropriate early referral of selected patients probably partly explains this finding.

Diagnostic contribution of cardiac magnetic resonance in patients with acute coronary syndrome and culprit-free angiograms.

BACKGROUND: In spite of robust knowledge about underlying ischemic myocardial damage, acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with culprit-free angiograms raise diagnostic concerns. The present study aimed to evaluate the additional value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) over commonly available non-CMR standard tests, for the differentiation of myocardial injury in patients with ACS and non-obstructed coronary arteries. MATERIAL/METHODS: Patients with ACS, elevated hs-TnT, and a culprit-free angiogram were prospectively enrolled into the study between January 2009 and July 2013. After initial evaluation with standard tests (ECG, echocardiography, hs-TnT) and provisional exclusion of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in coronary angiogram, patients were referred for CMR with the suspicion of myocarditis or Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TTC). According to the result of CMR, patients were reclassified as having myocarditis, AMI, TTC, or non-injured myocardium as assessed by late gadolinium enhancement. RESULTS: Out of 5110 patients admitted with ACS, 75 had normal coronary angiograms and entered the study; 69 of them (92%) were suspected for myocarditis and 6 (8%) for TTC. After CMR, 49 patients were finally diagnosed with myocarditis (65%), 3 with TTC (4%), 7 with AMI (9%), and 16 (21%) with non-injured myocardium. The provisional diagnosis was changed or excluded in 23 patients (31%), with a 9% rate of unrecognized AMI. CONCLUSIONS: The study results suggest that the evaluation of patients with ACS and culprit-free angiogram should be complemented by a CMR examination, if available, because the initial work-up with non-CMR tests leads to a significant proportion of misdiagnosed AMI.

Relapsing acute respiratory failure induced by minocycline.

The antibiotic minocycline, which is used in the treatment of acne, has been associated with various pulmonary complications such as pulmonary lupus and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. We now report a particularly severe case of minocycline-related pulmonary toxicity that was characterized by a relapsing form of hypersensitivity eosinophilic pneumonia complicated by acute respiratory failure.

Efficacy of in-hospital multidimensional interventions of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention programs for patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome have been shown to be effective in the outpatient setting. The efficacy of in-hospital prevention interventions administered soon after acute cardiac events is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether in-hospital, patient-level interventions targeting multiple cardiovascular risk factors reduce all-cause mortality after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a prespecified search strategy, we included controlled clinical trials and before-after studies of secondary prevention interventions with at least a patient-level component (ie, education, counseling, or patient-specific order sets) initiated in hospital with outcomes of mortality, readmission, or reinfarction rates in acute coronary syndrome patients. We classified the interventions as patient-level interventions with or without associated healthcare provider-level interventions and/or system-level interventions. Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimate of 14 studies revealed a relative risk of all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92; n=37,585) at 1 year. However, the apparent benefit depended on study design and level of intervention. The before-after studies suggested reduced mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.90; n=3680 deaths), whereas the RR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.44; n=99 deaths) among the controlled clinical trials. Only interventions including a provider- or system-level intervention suggested reduced mortality compared with patient-level-only interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for in-hospital, patient-level interventions for secondary prevention is promising but not definitive because only before-after studies suggest a significant reduction in mortality. Future research should formally test which components of interventions provide the greatest benefit.

Efficacity of in-hospital multidimensional interventions of secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome : a systematic review and meta-analysis

RAPPORT DE SYNTHÈSE : Contexte Les programmes de prévention cardiovasculaire secondaire après un événement coronarien aigu ont pu démontrer leur efficacité dans le contexte des soins ambulatoires. L'hospitalisation pour une maladie aiguë peut être considérée comme un «instant charnière», particulièrement adapté à un changement de comportement de santé et où des interventions de prévention secondaire, telle l'éducation du patient, pourraient être particulièrement efficaces. De plus, la prescription de médicaments de prévention cardiovasculaire durant l'hospitalisation semble augmenter la proportion des patients traités selon les recommandations sur le long terme. Récemment, plusieurs études ont évalué l'efficacité de programmes de prévention ayant pour but l'éducation des patients et/ou une augmentation du taux de prescription de médicaments prouvés efficaces par les médecins en charge. L'article faisant l'objet du travail de thèse synthétise la littérature existante concernant l'efficacité en termes de mortalité des interventions multidimensionnelles de prévention cardiovasculaire après un syndrome coronarien aigu, débutées à l'hôpital, centrées sur le patient et ciblant plusieurs facteurs de risque cardiovasculaire. MÉTHODE ET RÉSULTATS : En utilisant une stratégie de recherche définie à l'avance, nous avons inclus des essais cliniques avec groupe contrôle et des études avant-après, débutées à l'hôpital et qui incluaient des résultats cliniques de suivi en terme de mortalité, de taux de réadmission et/ou de récidive de syndrome coronarien aigu. Nous avons catégorisé les études selon qu'elles ciblaient les patients (par exemple une intervention d'éducation aux patients par des infirmières), les soignants (par exemple des cours destinés aux médecins-assistants pour leur enseigner comment prodiguer des interventions éducatives) ou le système de soins (par exemple la mise en place d'itinéraires cliniques au niveau de l'institution). Globalement, les interventions rapportées dans les 14 études répondant aux critères montraient une réduction du risque relatif (RR) de mortalité après un an (RR= 0.79; 95% intervalle de confiance (IC), 0.69-0.92; n=37'585). Cependant, le bénéfice semblait dépendre du type d'étude et du niveau d'intervention. Les études avant-après suggéraient une réduction du risque de mortalité (RR, 0.77; 95% IC, 0.66-0.90; n=3680 décès), tandis que le RR était de 0.96 (95% IC, 0.64-1.44; n=99 décès) pour les études cliniques contrôlées. Seules les études avant-après et les études ciblant les soignants et le système, en plus de cibler les patients, semblaient montrer un bénéfice en termes de mortalité à une année. CONCLUSIONS ET PERSPECTIVES : Les preuves d'efficacité des interventions de prévention secondaires débutées à l'hôpital, ciblant le patient, sont prometteuses, mais pas définitives. En effet, seules les études avant-après montrent un bénéfice en termes de mortalité. Les recherches futures dans ce domaine devraient tester formellement quels éléments des interventions amènent le plus de bénéfices pour les patients.