Chest Pain Management Using Prehospital Point-of-Care Troponin and Paramedic Risk Assessment

Prehospital risk assessment and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention centre in suspected acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital risk stratification and triage are currently not performed in patients suspected of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). This may lead to prolonged time to revascularisation, increased duration of hospital admission and higher healthcare costs. The preHEART score (prehospital history, ECG, age, risk factors and point-of-care troponin score) can be used by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel for prehospital risk stratification and triage decisions in patients with NSTE-ACS. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centre, based on the preHEART score, on time to final invasive diagnostics or culprit revascularisation.

METHODS

Prospective, multicentre, two-cohort study in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. The first cohort is observational (standard care), while the second (interventional) cohort includes patients who are stratified for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI centre based on their preHEART score. Risk stratification and triage are performed by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint of the study is time from first medical contact until final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation. Secondary endpoints are time from first medical contact until intracoronary angiography (ICA), duration of hospital admission, number of invasive diagnostics, number of inter-hospital transfers and major adverse cardiac events at 7 and 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1069 patients were included. In the interventional cohort (n=577), time between final invasive diagnostics or revascularisation (42 (17-101) hours vs 20 (5-44) hours, p<0.001) and length of hospital admission (3 (2-5) days vs 2 (1-4) days, p=0.007) were shorter than in the observational cohort (n=492). In patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation, healthcare costs were reduced in the interventional cohort (€5599 (2978-9625) vs €4899 (2278-5947), p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Prehospital risk stratification and direct transfer to a PCI centre, based on the preHEART score, reduces time from first medical contact to final invasive diagnostics and revascularisation, reduces duration of hospital admission and decreases healthcare costs in patients with NSTE-ACS in need for ICA or revascularisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05243485.

Pre-hospital rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome by a single troponin: final one-year outcomes of the ARTICA randomised trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The healthcare burden of acute chest pain is enormous. In the randomised ARTICA trial we showed that pre-hospital identification of low-risk patients and rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement reduces 30-day healthcare costs with low major adverse cardiac events (MACE) incidence. Here we present the final one-year results of the ARTICA trial.

METHODS

Low-risk patients with suspected NSTE-ACS were randomised to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or emergency department (ED) transfer. Primary one-year outcome was healthcare costs. Secondary outcomes were safety, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. Safety was defined as one-year MACE, consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularisation or all-cause death. QoL was measured with EuroQol-5D-5 L questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was defined as one-year healthcare costs difference per QoL difference.

RESULTS

Follow-up was completed in all 863 patients. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1932±€2784 vs €2649±€2750), mean difference €717 (95% confidence interval [CI] €347 to €1087; P < 0.001). In the total population, one-year MACE rate was comparable between groups (5.1% [22/434] in the pre-hospital strategy vs 4.2% [18/429] in the ED strategy; P = 0.54). In the ruled-out ACS population, one-year MACE remained low (1.7% [7/419] vs 1.4% [6/417]), risk difference 0.2% (95% CI -1.4% to 1.9%; P = 0.79). QoL showed no significant difference between strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-hospital rule-out of NSTE-ACS with POC troponin testing in low-risk patients is cost-effective, expressed by a sustainable healthcare costs reduction and no significant effect on QoL. One-year MACE remained low for both strategies. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05466591, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: NTR7346.

Prehospital Targeting of 1-Year Mortality in Acute Chest Pain by Cardiac Biomarkers

The identification and appropriate management of patients at risk of suffering from acute chest pain (ACP) in prehospital care are not straightforward. This task could benefit, as occurs in emergency departments (EDs), from cardiac enzyme assessment. The aim of the present work was to derive and validate a scoring system based on troponin T (cTnT), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and D-dimer to predict 1-year mortality in patients with ACP. This was a prospective, multicenter, ambulance-based cohort study of adult patients with a prehospital ACP diagnosis who were evacuated by ambulance to the ED between October 2019 and July 2021. The primary outcome was 365-day cumulative mortality. A total of 496 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mortality rate was 12.1% (60 patients). The scores derived from cTnT, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer presented an AUC of 0.802 (95% CI: 0718-0.886) for 365-day mortality. This AUC was superior to that of each individual cardiac enzyme. Our study provides promising evidence for the predictive value of a risk score based on cTnT, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer for the prediction of 1-year mortality in patients with ACP. The implementation of this score has the potential to benefit emergency medical service care and facilitate the on-scene decision-making process.

Measurement of Cardiac-Specific Biomarkers in the Emergency Department: New Insight in Risk Evaluation

The aim of this article review is to analyze some models and clinical issues related to the implementation of accelerated diagnostic protocols based on specific cardiac biomarkers in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms compatible with acute cardiac disorders. Four specific clinical issues will be discussed in detail: (a) pathophysiological and clinical interpretations of circulating hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT levels; (b) the clinical relevance and estimation of the biological variation of biomarkers in patients admitted to the ED with acute and severe diseases; (c) the role and advantages of the point-of-care testing (POCT) methods for cardiac-specific biomarkers in pre-hospital and hospital clinical practice; and (d) the clinical role of specific cardiac biomarkers in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). In order to balance the risk between a hasty discharge versus the potential harms caused by a cardiac assessment in patients admitted to the ED with suspected acute cardiovascular disease, the measurement of specific cardiac biomarkers is essential for the early identification of the presence of myocardial dysfunction and/or injury and to significantly reduce the length and costs of hospitalization. Moreover, specific cardiac biomarkers (especially hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT) are useful predictors of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients admitted to the ED with suspected acute cardiovascular disease. To guide the implementation of the most rapid algorithms for the diagnosis of Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) into routine clinical practice, clinical scientific societies and laboratory medicine societies should promote collaborative studies specifically designed for the evaluation of the analytical performance and, especially, the cost/benefit ratio resulting from the use of these clinical protocols and POCT methods in the ED clinical practice.

[Benefits and drawbacks of CT scan as a triple rule-out exam in acute chest pain to exclude acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection]

Chest pain is one of the major causes for admission in the Emergency Room in most countries and one of the principal reasons for urgent consultation with a cardiologist or a general practitioner. After clinical examination and initial biological measurements, substantial patients require further explorations. CT scan allows the search for pulmonary embolism in the early stage of pulmonary arteries iodine contrast exploration. During the same exam at the systemic arterial phase, the search for aortic dissection or coronary artery disease is possible while exploring the later contrast in the aortic artery. This triple rule-out exam allows correct diagnosis in case of acute chest pain with suspected pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection and other acute aortic syndromes or acute coronary syndrome. But X-rays are substantially increased as well as iodine contrast agent quantity while exam quality is globally decreased. Artificial intelligence may play an important role in the development of this protocol.

Accelerated -Rule-Out of acute Myocardial Infarction using prehospital copeptin and in-hospital troponin: The AROMI study

AIMS

The present acute myocardial infarction (AMI) rule-out strategies are challenged by the late temporal release of cardiac troponin. Copeptin is a non-specific biomarker of endogenous stress and rises early in AMI, covering the early period where troponin is still normal. An accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy combining prehospital copeptin and in-hospital high-sensitivity troponin T could reduce length of hospital stay and thus the burden on the health care systems worldwide. The AROMI trial aimed to evaluate if the accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy could safely reduce length of stay in patients discharged after early rule-out of AMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with suspected AMI transported to hospital by ambulance were randomized 1:1 to either accelerated rule-out using copeptin measured in a prehospital blood sample and high-sensitivity troponin T measured at arrival to hospital or to standard rule-out using a 0 h/3 h rule-out strategy. The AROMI study included 4351 patients with suspected AMI. The accelerated dual-marker rule-out strategy reduced mean length of stay by 0.9 h (95% confidence interval 0.7-1.1 h) in patients discharged after rule-out of AMI and was non-inferior regarding 30-day major adverse cardiac events when compared to standard rule-out (absolute risk difference -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -2.5 to 1.7; P-value for non-inferiority = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Accelerated dual marker rule-out of AMI, using a combination of prehospital copeptin and first in-hospital high-sensitivity troponin T, reduces length of hospital stay without increasing the rate of 30-day major adverse cardiac events as compared to using a 0 h/3 h rule-out strategy.

Direct admission versus interhospital transfer for revascularisation in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The differences in outcomes and process parameters for NSTEMI patients who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre are largely unknown.

HYPOTHESIS

There are differences in process indicators, but not for clinical outcomes, for NSTEMI who are directly admitted to an intervention centre and patients who are first admitted to a general centre.

METHODS

We aim to compare process indicators, costs and clinical outcomes of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients stratified by center of first presentation and revascularisation strategy. Hospital claim data from patients admitted with a NSTEMI between 2017 and 2019 were used for this study. Included patients were stratified by center of admission (intervention vs. general center) and subdivided by revascularisation strategy (PCI, CABG, or no revascularisation [noRevasc]). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included: duration between admission and diagnostic angiography and revascularisation, number of intracoronary procedures, clinical outcomes at 30 days (MACE: all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiac readmission) and total costs (accumulation of costs for hospital claims and interhospital ambulance rides).

RESULTS

A total of 9641 NSTEMI events (9167 unique patients) were analyzed of which 5399 patients (56%) were admitted at an intervention center and 4242 patients to a general center. Duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter at direct presentation at an intervention centre for all study groups (5 days [2-11] vs. 7 days [4-12], p < 0.001). For PCI, direct presentation at an intervention center yielded shorter time to diagnostic angiography (1 day [0-2] vs. 1 day [1-2], p < 0.01) and revascularisation (1 day [0-3] vs. 4 days [1-7], p < 0.001) and less intracoronary procedures per patient (2 [1-2] vs. 2 [2-2], p < 0.001). For CABG, time to revascularisation was shorter (8 days [5-12] vs. 10 days [7-14], p < 0.001). Total costs were significantly lower in case of direct presentation in an intervention center for all treatment groups €10.211 (8750-18.192) versus €13.741 (11.588-19.381), p < 0.001) while MACE was similar 11.8% versus 12.4%, p = 0.344).

CONCLUSION

NSTEMI patients who were directly presented to an intervention center account for shorter duration of hospitalization, less time to revascularisation, less interhospital transfers, less intracoronary procedures and lower costs compared to patients who present at a general center.