In-Hospital Healthcare Utilization, Outcomes, and Costs in Pre-Hospital-Adjudicated Low-Risk Chest-Pain Patients

Background There is increasing evidence that in patients presenting with acute chest pain, pre-hospital triage can accurately identify low-risk patients. It is, however, still unclear which diagnostics are performed in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk patients and what the contribution is of those diagnostic results in the healthcare process. Objectives The aim of this study was to quantify healthcare utilization, costs, and outcomes in pre-hospital-adjudicated low-risk chest-pain patients, and to extrapolate to total costs in the Netherlands. Methods This was a prospective cohort study including 700 patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in which pre-hospital risk stratification using the HEART score was performed by paramedics. Low risk was defined as a pre-hospital HEART scor

Consequences of different cut-off values for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin for risk stratification of patients suspected for NSTE-ACS with a modified HEART score

Aim: This study aims to enhance prehospital risk assessment for suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients using the HEART-score. By incorporating novel point-of-care high-sensitivity cardiac troponin devices, a modified HEART-score was developed and compared with the conventional approach. Patients & methods: Troponin points within the modified HEART-score are based on values below the limit of quantitation (LoQ), between the LoQ and 99th percentile and above the 99th percentile of the used device. A total HEART-score of three or lower is considered low-risk for major adverse cardiac events. Results & conclusion: The number of low-risk patients decreased based on the modified HEART-score. The sensitivity and negative predictive value increased which suggests increasing safety in ruling out patients with suspected NSTE-ACS

Clinical outcomes of deferred revascularisation using fractional flow reserve in patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Objective: Deferred revascularisation based upon fractional flow reserve (FFR >0.80) is associated with a low incidence of target lesion failure (TLF). Whether deferred revascularisation is also as safe in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients is unknown. Methods: All DM patients and the next consecutive Non-DM patients who underwent a FFR-assessment between 1/01/2010 and 31/12/2013 were included, and followed until 1/07/2015. Patients with lesions FFR >0.80 were analysed according to the presence vs. absence of DM, while patients who underwent index revascularisation in FFR-assessed or other lesions were excluded. The primary endpoint was the incidence of TLF; a composite of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI). Results: A total of 250 patients (122 DM, 128 non-DM) who underwent deferred revascularisation of all lesions (FFR >0.80) were compared. At a mean follow up of 39.8 \ub1 16.3 months, DM patients compared to non-DM had a higher TLF rate, 18.1 vs 7.5 %, logrank p 64 0.01, Cox regression-adjusted HR 3.65 (95 % CI 1.40-9.53, p < 0.01), which was largely driven by a higher incidence of TLR (17.2 vs. 7.5 %, HR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.34-9.30, p = 0.01), whilst a non-significant but numerically higher incidence of TVMI (6.1 vs. 2.0 %, HR 3.34, 95 % CI 0.64-17.30, p = 0.15) was observed. Conclusions: This study, the largest to directly compare the clinical outcomes of FFR-guided deferred revascularisation in patients with and without DM, shows that DM patients are associated with a significantly higher TLF rate. Whether intravascular imaging, additional invasive haemodynamics or stringent risk factor modification may impact on this higher TLF rate remains unknown

Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure

BACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)