Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Community

Objectives: To measure the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), defined as first-ever myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina (UA); evaluate recent temporal trends; and determine whether survival after ACS has changed over time and differs by type. Patients and Methods: This was a population surveillance study conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota (population: 144,248). All persons hospitalized with incident ACS between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010, were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes, natural language processing of the medical records, and biomarkers. Myocardial infarction was validated by epidemiologic criteria and UA by the Braunwald classification. Patients were followed through June 30, 2013, for death. Results: Of 1244 incident ACS cases, 35% (n=438) were UA and 65% (n=806) were MI. The standardized rates (per 100,000) of ACS were 284 (95% CI, 248-319) in 2005 and 184 (95% CI, 157-210) in 2010 (2010 vs 2005: rate ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.73), indicating a 38% decline (similar for MI and UA). The 30-day case fatality rates did not differ by year of diagnosis but were worse for MI (8.9%; 95% CI, 6.9%-10.9%) compared with UA (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.1%). Among 30-day survivors, the risk of death did not differ by ACS type or diagnosis year. Conclusion: In the community, UA constitutes 35% of ACS. The incidence of ACS has declined in recent years, and trends were similar for UA and MI, reaffirming a substantial decline in all acute manifestations of coronary disease. Survival after ACS did not change over time, but 30-day survival was worse for MI compared with UA. (C) 2015 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Researc

Approaching patient engagement in research: what do patients with cardiovascular disease think?

Lila J Finney Rutten,1,2 Megan A Morris,1,2 Lisa M Schrader,1 Sheila M Manemann,2 Jyotishman Pathak,1,2 Robert Dimler,3 Veronique L Roger1,2 1Robert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 2Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, USA; 3The Rochester Coronary Club, Inc., Rochester MN, USA Abstract: Movement toward patient-centered health care must be supported by an evidence base informed by greater patient engagement in research. Efforts to better understand patients’ interest in and perspectives on involvement in the research process are fundamental to supporting movement of research programs toward greater patient engagement. We describe preliminary efforts to engage members of a community group of patients living with heart disease to better understand their interest and perspectives on involvement in research. A semi-structured focus group guide was developed to probe willingness to participate in the following three phases of research: preparation, execution, and translation. The focus group discussion, and our summary of key messages gleaned from said discussion, was organized around the phases of research that patients may be involved in, with the goal of delineating degrees of interest expressed for engagement in each phase. Consistent with what is known from the literature, a clear preference for engagement during the preparation and translation phase of the research process emerged. This preliminary conversation will guide our ongoing research efforts toward greater inclusion of patients throughout the research process. Keywords: patient engagement, phases of research, patient-centered care, research translatio

Grip strength predicts cardiac adverse events in patients with cardiac disorders: an individual patient pooled meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Grip strength is a well-characterised measure of weakness and of poor muscle performance, but there is a lack of consensus on its prognostic implications in terms of cardiac adverse events in patients with cardiac disorders. METHODS: Articles were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, BioMed Central and EMBASE. The main inclusion criteria were patients with cardiac disorders (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure (HF), cardiomyopathies, valvulopathies, arrhythmias); evaluation of grip strength by handheld dynamometer; and relation between grip strength and outcomes. The endpoints of the study were cardiac death, all-cause mortality, hospital admission for HF, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Data of interest were retrieved from the articles and after contact with authors, and then pooled in an individual patient meta-analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to define predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 23 480 patients were included from 7 studies. The mean age was 62.3±6.9 years and 70% were male. The mean follow-up was 2.82±1.7 years. After multivariate analysis grip strength (difference of 5 kg, 5× kg) emerged as an independent predictor of cardiac death (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, p<0.0001), all-cause death (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.89, p<0.0001) and hospital admission for HF (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.92, p<0.0001). On the contrary, we did not find any relationship between grip strength and occurrence of MI or CVA. CONCLUSION: In patients with cardiac disorders, grip strength predicted cardiac death, all-cause death and hospital admission for HF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015025280