Lack of Usefulness of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA as a Biomarker for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy: A Prospective Study

Background

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality among long-term heart transplant recipients. There is an unmet need for a non-invasive biomarker of CAV that could obviate the need to perform surveillance coronary angiograms in these patients. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of Donor-derived Cell Free DNA (dd-cfDNA) as a biomarker of CAV.

Methods

We prospectively measured dd-cfDNA levels in all patients undergoing routine coronary angiography >1 year after heart transplant at a single center. Endpoints included the association between dd-cfDNA levels and the presence CAV, according to several prespecified criteria.

Results

We included 94 heart transplant recipients, a median of 10.9 years after transplant. Coronary angiogram revealed CAV₀, CAV₁, CAV₂, and CAV₃ in 61, 19, 14, and 6% of patients, respectively. Comparison of dd-cfDNA levels in patients with CAV₀ and CAV_1–2–3 (primary end-point) did not show significant differences (0.92%, IQR 0.46–2.0 vs. 0.46%, IQR 0.075–1.5, p = 0.059), nor did the comparison between patients with stable CAV (no new coronary lesions since previous angiogram, n = 77) and progressive CAV (n = 17); dd-cfDNA values 0.735% (IQR 0.195–2.0) vs. 0.9% (IQR 0.12–1.8), p = 0.76. However, we found an association between NTproBNP levels and CAV degree (p = 0.017). Dd-cfDNA levels did not correlate with NTproBNP (ρ = −0.095).

Conclusion

In this study, dd-cfDNA did not perform as a useful biomarker to avoid surveillance coronary angiograms for CAV diagnosis.

Clinical Trial Notation

Potential Role of Donor-derived Cell Free DNA as a Biomarker in Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy, NCT 04791852.

Usefulness of severity scales for cardiogenic shock in-hospital mortality. Proposal for a new prognostic model

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition comprising multiple etiologies, which associates high mortality rates. Some scoring systems have been shown to be good predictors of hospital mortality in patients admitted to Critical Care Units (CCU). The main objective of this study is to analyze their usefulness and validity in a cohort of CS patients.

METHODS

Observational unicentric study of a cohort of CS patients. SOFA, SAPS II and APACHE II scores were calculated in the first 24 h of CCU admission.

RESULTS

130 patients with CS were included. SOFA, SAPS II and APACHE II scores revealed good discrimination for hospital mortality: (AUC) ROC values (AUC: 0.711, 0.752 and 0.742 respectively; P = .6). Calibration, estimated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, was adequate in all cases. Acute coronary syndrome, lactate serum values, SAPS II score and vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) were found to be independent predictors for mortality, upon ICU admission. With these variables, a specific prognostic indicator was developed (SAPS-2-LIVE), which improved predictive capability for mortality in our series (AUC) ROC, 0.825 (95% CI 0.752-0.89).

CONCLUSION

In this contemporary CS cohort, the aforementioned scores have been shown to have good predictive ability for hospital mortality. These findings could contribute to a more accurate risk stratification in CS.

External validation and comparison of the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in real-world cardiogenic shock patients

BACKGROUND

Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients.

METHODS

The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II).

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.

Use of the radial approach in primary angioplasty: results in 1029 consecutive patients and analyses in unfavorable subgroups

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The transradial approach is associated with a reduction in vascular access-related complications after primary percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of the routine use of transradial access in primary angioplasty and to evaluate how it affects subgroups with less favorable characteristics.

METHODS

We analyzed 1029 consecutive patients with an ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome treated with primary angioplasty.

RESULTS

Transradial access was the primary approach in 93.1% of the patients. The success rate of primary angioplasty was 95.9%, and 87.6% of the patients were event-free 30 days after the procedure. Crossover was required in 3.0% of the patients with primary transradial access, and this rate remained stable over the years. Predictors of the need for crossover were age older than 75 years (odds ratio=2.50, 95% confidence interval, 1.09-5.71; P=.03) and a history of ischemic heart disease (odds ratio=2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-6.24; P=.02). Primary transfemoral access use was higher in women older than 75 years. Use of the transradial approach in this subgroup did not affect reperfusion time or the success of angioplasty, although there was a greater need for crossover (10.9% vs 2.6%; P=.006). Among patients in cardiogenic shock, the transradial approach was used in 51.5%; reperfusion times and angioplasty success rates were similar to those obtained with transfemoral access, but there was a greater need for crossover.

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial access can be used safely and effectively in most primary angioplasty procedures. In older women and in patients in cardiogenic shock, there is a higher crossover requirement, with no detriment to reperfusion time.