Distribution of contemporary sensitivity troponin in the emergency department and relationship to 30-day mortality: The CHARIOT-ED substudy.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary sensitivity troponin (cs-cTn) concentrations above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are seen in a wide range of clinical conditions and evidence is growing that suggests cs-cTn may be a biomarker of future morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to test the hypothesis that cs-cTn, measured in the emergency department, may be a biomarker for 30-day mortality, irrespective of the patient's presentation. METHOD: In all 5,708 consecutive cases, contemporary sensitivity troponin I (cs-cTnI) was measured either as requested by the clinical team or as part of the study, in which case both the clinical team and the patient were unaware of the result. Basic demographics were available from the original study and 30-day mortality was derived from NHS Digital data. RESULTS: In patients whose cs-cTnI test was requested solely as part of the study, 30-day mortality increased with increasing cs-cTnI concentrations (0% with undetectable concentrations to 14.7% with concentrations above the ULN). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that log(10)cs-cTnI concentration was independently associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Increasing cs-cTnI concentrations are associated with higher short-term mortality as well as length of stay. As such, cs-cTnI measurements may provide useful prognostic information

True 99th centile of high sensitivity cardiac troponin for hospital patients: prospective, observational cohort study?

OBJECTIVE To determine the distribution, and specifically the true 99th centile, of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) for a whole hospital population by applying the hs-cTnI assay currently used routinely at a large teaching hospital. DESIGN Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom, between 29 June 2017 and 24 August 2017. PARTICIPANTS 20000 consecutive inpatients and outpatients undergoing blood tests for any clinical reason. Hs-cTnI concentrations were measured in all study participants and nested for analysis except when the supervising doctor had requested hs-cTnI for clinical reasons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Distribution of hs-cTnI concentrations of all study participants and specifically the 99th centile. RESULTS The 99th centile of hs-cTnI for the whole population was 296 ng/L compared with the manufacturer’s quoted level of 40 ng/L (currently used clinically as the upper limit of normal; ULN). Hs-cTnI concentrations were greater than 40 ng/L in one in 20 (5.4%, n=1080) of the total population. After excluding participants diagnosed as having acute myocardial infarction (n=122) and those in whom hs-cTnI was requested for clinical reasons (n=1707), the 99th centile was 189 ng/L for the remainder (n=18171). The 99th centile was 563 ng/L for inpatients (n=4759) and 65 ng/L for outpatients (n=9280). Patients from the emergency department (n=3706) had a 99th centile of 215 ng/L, with 6.07% (n=225) greater than the recommended ULN. 39.02% (n=48) of all patients from the critical care units (n=123) and 14.16% (n=67) of all medical inpatients had an hs-cTnI concentration greater than the recommended ULN. CONCLUSIONS Of 20000 consecutive patients undergoing a blood test for any clinical reason at our hospital, one in 20 had an hs-cTnI greater than the recommended ULN. These data highlight the need for clinical staff to interpret hs-cTnI concentrations carefully, particularly when applying the recommended ULN to diagnose acute myocardial infarction, in order to avoid misdiagnosis in the absence of an appropriate clinical presentation. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0304778

Phenogrouping heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction using electronic health record data

Background: Heart failure (HF) with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction includes a heterogenous group of patients. Reclassification into distinct phenogroups to enable targeted interventions is a priority. This study aimed to identify distinct phenogroups, and compare phenogroup characteristics and outcomes, from electronic health record data. Methods: 2,187 patients admitted to five UK hospitals with a diagnosis of HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% were identified from the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative database. Partition-based, model-based, and density-based machine learning clustering techniques were applied. Cox Proportional Hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks models were used to compare outcomes (all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF) across phenogroups. Results: Three phenogroups were identified: (1) Younger, predominantly female patients with high prevalence of cardiometabolic and coronary disease; (2) More frail patients, with higher rates of lung disease and atrial fibrillation; (3) Patients characterised by systemic inflammation and high rates of diabetes and renal dysfunction. Survival profiles were distinct, with an increasing risk of all-cause mortality from phenogroups 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). Phenogroup membership significantly improved survival prediction compared to conventional factors. Phenogroups were not predictive of hospitalisation for HF. Conclusions: Applying unsupervised machine learning to routinely collected electronic health record data identified phenogroups with distinct clinical characteristics and unique survival profiles

Arrhythmia and death following percutaneous revascularization in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: Prespecified analyses from the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82–1.30]; P =0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920048

Angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: more or less physiology?

Evidence robustly demonstrates that ischemia, rather than anatomy, is the optimal target for coronary revascularization. In the cardiac catheter laboratory, fractional flow reserve (FFR) and corresponding diastolic indices are regarded as the gold standard for physiological lesion assessment and ischemia detection (Table 1). Yet, despite a wealth of supporting data and indications in international guidelines, the use of FFR remains surprisingly low in the diagnostic assessment of coronary artery disease across the world.1, 2 To address this, multiple groups have developed methods for computing FFR from invasive angiography, without the need for passing a pressure wire or inducing hyperemia, thus removing the main barriers to uptake. Angiography‐derived FFR therefore has the potential to extend the benefits of physiological coronary lesion assessment to considerably more patients. Given the size of the interventional cardiology market, clinical and commercial motivation to deliver these tools as quickly as possible could hardly be greater. Several models are now approved as medical devices. Imminently, physicians and healthcare providers will have to decide whether to use these tools. But do they truly deliver physiology, and are they accurate enough? There are 3 particular areas of that deserve close scrutiny

Does the Routine Availability of CT–Derived FFR Influence Management of Patients With Stable Chest Pain Compared to CT Angiography Alone?

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the effect of adding computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) data to computed tomography angiographic (CTA) data alone for assessment of lesion severity and patient management in 200 patients with chest pain.BackgroundInvasive and noninvasive tests used in the assessment of patients with angina all have disadvantages. The ideal screening test for patients presenting for the first time with chest pain would describe both coronary anatomy and the presence of ischemia and would be readily accessible, low cost, and noninvasive.MethodsTwo hundred patients with stable chest pain underwent CTA for clinical reasons, and FFRCT was calculated. Three experienced interventional cardiologists assessed the CTA result for each patient and by consensus developed a management plan (optimal medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or more information required). FFRCT data for each vessel were then revealed, and the interventional cardiologists made a second plan by consensus, using the same 4 options. The primary endpoint for the study was the difference between the 2 strategies.ResultsOverall, after disclosure of FFRCT data there was a change in the allocated management category on the basis of CTA alone in 72 cases (36%). This difference is explained by a discordance between the CTA- and FFRCT-derived assessments of lesion severity. For example, FFRCT was >0.80 in 13 of 44 vessels (29.5%) graded as having a stenosis >90%. In contrast, FFRCT was ≤0.80 in 17 of 366 vessels (4.6%) graded as having stenosis ≤50%.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates proof of concept that the availability of FFRCT results has a substantial effect on the labeling of significant coronary artery disease and therefore on the management of patients compared to CTA alone. Further studies are needed to determine whether FFRCT has potential as a noninvasive diagnostic and management screening tool for patients with stable chest pain