Prognostic multi-center study, Level III.
BackgroundThe optimal timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in clinically stable patients with acute myocardial infarction who are unsuitable for percutaneous coronary intervention is unclear. We report our experience with early CABG in these patients.Methods and ResultsBetween January 2001 and May 2015, 766 patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, n=305) or non‐STEMI (NSTEMI, n=461) not including cardiogenic shock underwent CABG within 48 hours at our department. STEMI patients were younger than non‐STEMI patients (age 65 years [range: 58–72] versus 70 years [range: 62–75], P<0.001) with a lower EuroSCORE II (4.12 [range: 2.75–5.81] versus 4.58 [range: 2.80–7.74], P=0.009). STEMI patients had undergone preoperative percutaneous coronary intervention more often (20.3% versus 7.8%, P<0.001). Time to surgery was shorter in STEMI compared with non‐STEMI patients (5.0 hours [range: 3.2–8.8] versus 11.7 hours [range: 6.4–22.0], P<0.001). No significant differences concerning arterial graft use (93.8% versus 94.8%, P=0.540) or complete revascularization (87.5% versus 83.4%, P=0.121) were observed. The rate of strokes did not differ between the groups (2.0% versus 3.9%, P=0.134). Thirty‐day mortality was lower in STEMI patients (2.7% versus 6.6% P=0.018), especially when CABG was performed within 6 hours (1.8% versus 7.1%, P=0.041). Survival of STEMI and non‐STEMI patients was 94% versus 88% after 1 year (P<0.001), 87% versus 73% after 5 years (P<0.001), and 74% versus 57% after 10 years (P<0.001). Independent predictors of 30‐day and long‐term mortality included preoperatively increased lactate values, age, atrial fibrillation, and reduced left ventricular function.ConclusionsStable STEMI patients showed a lower rate of perioperative complications and better survival compared with non‐STEMI patients when CABG was performed within 48 hours.
Aims The feasibility, efficacy and safety of ESC 0/1- and 0/3-hour algorithms using high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) were evaluated in an all-comer cohort with suspected acute coronary syndrome, based on a broad spectrum of symptoms. Methods During 12 months, 2,525 eligible patients were enrolled. In a pre-implementation period of 6 months, prevalence of protocols, disposition, lengths of emergency department (ED) stay and treatments were registered. Implementation of ESC 0/1-hour protocol was monitored for another 6 months. Primary endpoints comprised the change of diagnostic protocols, and all-cause mortality at 30 days following direct discharge from the ED. Secondary endpoints included length of ED stay, hospital discharge, and 1-year mortality. Results Use of the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm increased by 270% at the cost of the standard 0/3-hour protocol. Median follow-up times were 400 (316–459) days, with vital status available for 98.7%. After rule-out (1,588 patients), 1,309 patients (76.1%) were discharged directly from the ED, with an all-cause mortality of 0.08% at 30 days (1 death due to lung cancer). Median lengths of stay were 2.9 (1.9–3.8) and 3.2 (2.7–4.4) hours using a single hsTnT below limit of detection (LoD) (5 ng/L) at presentation and the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm, respectively, as compared to 5.3 (4.7–6.5) hours using the ESC 0/3-hour rule-out protocol. Discharge rates increased from 53.9% to 62.8% (p<0.0001), without excessive use of diagnostic resources within 30 days. Mortality by diagnostic rule Conclusion Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour algorithm seems feasible and safe. It is associated with shorter ED stays than the ESC 0/3-hour protocol and a further increase of discharge rates. Acknowledgement/Funding Roche Diagnostics International Ltd.
Background Patients with unstable angina (UA) are regarded to be at low risk for future coronary events. Guidelines discourage routine coronary angiography and recommend early discharge after individualized risk stratification. The relative value of clinical risk indicators as compared to cardiac troponin (cTn) alone is unsettled in the era of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hsTn) assays. Purpose We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics, therapies and outcomes of UA patients with different hsTnT concentrations. Methods During 12 months, 2,525 patients were enrolled. UA was defined as unstable symptoms and either undetectable (<5 ng/L), normal (5–14 ng/L) or stable elevated hsTnT (15–51 ng/L). Follow up for 1-year mortality was available in 98.7%. Results A total of 280 patients (11.1%) received a diagnosis of UA. Mortality rates at 12 months were 0%, 1.9% and 6.9% in presence of undetectable, normal and stable elevated hsTnT. Elevated hsTnT >99th percentile but not unstable symptoms carried an independent 3.25-fold (1.78–5.93) higher risk for all-cause death after adjustment for other clinical risk indicators or the GRACE score. Utilization of guideline recommended therapies was high albeit lower than for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Significantly fewer patients with UA received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, odds ratio (OR): 0.51 [95% CI: 0.44–0.59], p<0.0001), coronary angiography (CA, OR 0.79, [95% CI: 0.74–0.87], p<0.0001), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, OR 0.50, [95% CI: 0.40–0.61], p<0.0001), compared to NSTEMI. However, prevalence of significant obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring PCI was 31.8%, even in patients with undetectable hsTnT, indicating the need for stress testing. Conclusions The current dichotomization of patients into UA and NSTEMI is no longer appropriate. Additional risk stratification seems warranted including the presence and magnitude of hsTn concentration and additional risk indicators. Acknowledgement/Funding Research Grant by Roche Diagnostics
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.