NSTEMI Progressing to STEMI in a Healthy Young Female

Introduction: Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in healthy individuals. There are no risk stratification tools for the prevention of SCAD and no clear guidelines for acute management. The use of traditional ACS therapies, including antiplatelets agents, anti-thrombotics, beta-blockers, and statins, remains controversial.Clinical Case: A 40-year-old female with hypertension and distant history of postpartum pre-eclampsia presented with sudden onset, substernal chest pain radiating to her left arm and jaw. Her pain began while cooking and was associated with dizziness, fatigue and diaphoresis. In the Emergency Department, she was given sublingual nitrogen and aspirin 325mg with immediate improvement in her symptoms. An EKG demonstrated normal sinus rhythm with T-wave inversion in V1-V5. Troponin-I levels were initially normal at 40 ng/L (ref range:/L), elevating to a peak of 22,620 ng/L after 12 hours. She was treated with unfractionated heparin, clopidogrel 300mg, atorvastatin 80mg, and aspirin 81mg for the management of NSTEMI and admitted to the telemetry unit. Left heart catheterization revealed an ejection fraction of 55-60% with apical hypokinesis, and 95% obstruction of the mid LAD with diffuse tapering to the distal segment consistent with Type 2 SCAD. TIMI-2 flow was maintained, and her symptoms had resolved so no additional intravascular imaging or percutaneous intervention was performed. Unfractionated heparin was stopped and atorvastatin was discontinued given her 10-year ASCVD risk of less-than 7.5%, and no evidence of atherosclerotic epicardial coronary artery disease. Four hours post-catheterization she experienced recurrent chest pain while resting in bed. Repeat EKG demonstrated new ST-segment elevations in leads V2 through V5 consistent with STEMI. Troponin-I levels rose to 5270 ng/L after previously down-trending to 4920 ng/L. Repeat catheterization was deferred given known diagnosis of SCAD and prompt resolution of chest pain with further medical management. Unfractionated heparin was not restarted given concern for worsening intraluminal hematoma. Serial EKGs demonstrated resolution of ST segment elevations. She did not experience any additional episodes of chest pain and remained hemodynamically stable for the rest of her hospital stay. She was discharged home on hospital day 5 on metoprolol tartrate 25mg twice a day, aspirin 8mg daily, and 1 year of clopidogrel 75mg daily. Repeat catheterization 51 days after discharge demonstrated 50% obstruction of LAD with improved appearance of SCAD lesion. Discussion: This is a case of a young woman with NSTEMI progressing to STEMI due to Type 2 SCAD. The risks of catheter-induced progression of luminal dissection versus progression of intramural hematoma with unfractionated heparin must be considered based on the angiographic appearance of the affected artery and the patient’s clinical course. Although there are no societal guidelines for the acute management of SCAD, expert consensus has found a role for dual-antiplatelet and beta-blocker therapy in minimizing major adverse cardiac events post-SCAD. More investigation is needed, however, on the use of standard ACS therapies and risk prediction tools for the occurrence and recurrence of SCAD.https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/merf2019caserpt/1129/thumbnail.jp

Relationship Between Cardiovascular Disease Knowledge and Race/Ethnicity, Education, and Weight Status

Background: Inadequate cardiovascular disease (CVD) knowledge has been cited to account for the imperfect decline in CVD among women over the last 2 decades. Hypothesis: Due to concerns that at-risk women might not know the leading cause of death or symptoms of a heart attack, our goal was to assess the relationship between CVD knowledge race/ethnicity, education, and body mass index (BMI). Methods: Using a structured questionnaire, CVD knowledge, socio-demographics, risk factors, and BMI were evaluated in 681 women. Results: Participants included Hispanic, 42.1% (n = 287); non-Hispanic white (NHW), 40.2% (n = 274); non-Hispanic black (NHB), 7.3% (n = 50); and Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI), 8.7% (n = 59). Average BMI was 26.3 ± 6.1 kg/m2. Hypertension was more frequent among overweight (45%) and obese (62%) than normal weight (24%) (P 12 years (both P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Effective prevention strategies for at-risk populations need to escalate CVD knowledge and awareness among the undereducated and minority women

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used