GRACE scores or high-sensitivity troponin for timing of coronary angiography in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The GRACE risk score is generically recommended by guidelines for timing of invasive coronary angiography without stating which score should be used. The aim was to determine the diagnostic performance of different GRACE risk scores in comparison to the ESC 0/1 h-algorithm using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn).

METHODS

Prospectively enrolled patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of myocardial infarction (MI) in two large studies testing biomarker diagnostic strategies were included. Five GRACE risk scores were calculated. The amount of risk reclassification and the theoretical impact on guideline-recommended timing of invasive coronary angiography was studied.

RESULTS

Overall, 8,618 patients were eligible for analyses. Comparing different GRACE risk scores, up to 63.8% of participants were reclassified into a different risk category. The proportion of MIs identified (i.e., sensitivity) dramatically differed between GRACE risk scores (range 23.8-66.5%) and was lower for any score than for the ESC 0/1 h-algorithm (78.1%). Supplementing the ESC 0/1 h-algorithm with a GRACE risk score slightly increased sensitivity (P < 0.001 for all scores). However, this increased the number of false positive results.

CONCLUSION

The substantial amount of risk reclassification causes clinically meaningful differences in the proportion of patients meeting the recommended threshold for pursuing early invasive strategy according to the different GRACE scores. The single best test to detect MIs is the ESC 0/1 h-algorithm. Combining GRACE risk scoring with hs-cTn testing slightly increases the detection of MIs but also increases the number of patients with false positive results who would undergo potential unnecessarily early invasive coronary angiography.

Effect of COVID-19 on acute treatment of ST-segment elevation and Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in northwestern Switzerland

Background

To investigate the effect of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the acute treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation (STEMI) and Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

Methods

We retrospectively identified patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected ACS. We evaluated the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for STEMI, NSTE-ACS, and elective PCI cases. In STEMI patients, we assessed the time from chest pain onset (cpo) to ED presentation, post-infarction left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and time from ED presentation to PCI. We directly compared cases from two time intervals: January/February 2020 versus March/April 2020 (defined as 2 months before and after the COVID-19 outbreak). In a secondary analysis, we directly compared cases from March/April 2020 with patients from the same time interval in 2019.

Results

From January to April 2020, 765 patients presented with acute chest pain to the ED. A dramatic reduction of ED presentations after compared to before the COVID-19 outbreak (31% relative reduction) was observed. Overall, 398 PCIs were performed, 220/398 PCIs (55.3%) before versus 178/398 PCIs (44.7%) after the outbreak. While numbers for NSTE-ACS and elective interventions declined by 21% and 31%, respectively, the number of STEMI cases remained stable. Time from cpo to ED presentation, post-infarction LVEF, and median door-to-balloon time remained unchanged.

Conclusions

In contrast to previous reports, our findings do not confirm the dramatic drop in STEMI cases and interventions in northwestern Switzerland as observed in other regions and hospitals around the world.

Contemporary practice pattern of revascularization in a large tertiary care referral center in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: A propensity-matched 10-year experience

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the effects of early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the outcomes at 1 year in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

BACKGROUND

Prompt reperfusion in NSTEMI remains controversial. Randomized studies have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits of early intervention versus delayed intervention (defined as intervention performed within 24 hr vs. 24-72 hr of presentation, respectively). This study was conducted to determine the clinical outcomes post PCI in a large tertiary care center.

METHODS

A propensity-matched group of 1,640 NSTEMI patients [62.4% males (n = 1,023), median age 65 years] was studied for a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure in 1 year as a primary endpoint after PCI. Patients were divided into an early intervention group (EIG) and delayed intervention group (DIG). Timing of PCI was determined by the treating interventional cardiologist.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was significantly lower in the EIG than DIG (20.4% vs. 24.9%, P = 0.029), which was mainly derived from mortality benefit in the EIG. There was no difference in occurrence of death, MI, stroke, or heart failure between the groups at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

An earlier PCI in patients with NSTEMI is associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death, MI, heart failure, or stroke at 1 year compared with delayed PCI. Based on this large cohort of patients from a real-world referral center, contemporary reperfusion practices in NSTEMI may need to be re-examined with a bias toward early intervention.