Serum- and HDL3-serum amyloid A and HDL3-LCAT activity are influenced by increased CVD-burden.

BACKGROUND: High density lipoproteins (HDL) protect against cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, increased serum amyloid-A (SAA) related inflammation may negate this property. This study investigated if SAA was related to CVD-burden. METHODS: Subjects referred to the rapid chest pain clinic (n = 240) had atherosclerotic burden assessed by cardiac computerised tomography angiography. Subjects were classified as: no-CVD (n = 106), non-obstructive-CVD, stenosis<50% (n = 58) or moderate/significant-CVD, stenosis ≥50% (n = 76). HDL was subfractionated into HDL2 and HDL3 by rapid-ultracentrifugation. SAA-concentration was measured by ELISA and lecithin cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) activity measured by a fluorimetric assay. RESULTS: We illustrated that serum-SAA and HDL3-SAA-concentration were higher and HDL3-LCAT-activity lower in the moderate/significant-CVD-group, compared to the no-CVD and non-obstructive-CVD-groups (percent differences: serum-SAA, +33% & +30%: HDL3-SAA, +65% and +39%: HDL3-LCAT, -6% & -3%; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). We also identified a positive correlation between serum-SAA and HDL3-SAA (r = 0.698; p < 0.001) and a negative correlation between HDL3-SAA and HDL3-LCAT-activity (r = -0.295; p = 0.003), while CVD-burden positively correlated with serum-SAA (r = 0.150; p < 0.05) and HDL3-SAA (r = 0.252; p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with HDL3-LCAT-activity (r = -0.182; p = 0.006). Additionally, multivariate regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, CRP and serum-SAA illustrated that HDL3-SAA was significantly associated with modifying CVD-risk of moderate/significant CVD-risk (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated increased SAA-related inflammation in subjects with moderate/significant CVD-burden, which appeared to impact on the antiatherogenic potential of HDL. We suggest that SAA may be a useful biomarker to illustrate increased CVD-burden, although this requires further investigation.

'I am still a bit unsure how much of a heart attack it really was!' Patients presenting with non ST elevation myocardial infarction lack understanding about their illness and have less motivation for secondary prevention.

BACKGROUND: There are considerable differences in the type of treatments offered to patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), in terms of the speed and urgency with which they are admitted, treated and discharged from hospital. The impact of these different treatment experiences on patients' illness perception and motivation for behavioural changes is unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore and compare patients' illness perception and motivation for behavioural change following myocardial infarction (MI) treated by different methods. METHODS: Semi-structured, domiciliary interviews (n=15) based on the common sense model of self regulation, were conducted with three groups of MI patients within four weeks of diagnosis: (a) primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) (n=5); (b) thrombolysis (n=5); (c) non ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) (n=5). Framework analysis was used to identify and compare themes between groups. RESULTS: Patients presenting with a ST-elevation MI (STEMI) receiving either PPCI or thrombolysis had similar perceptions of their illness as a serious, life-threatening event and were determined to make lifestyle changes. In contrast, patients with a NSTEMI experienced uncertainty about symptoms and diagnosis, causing misconceptions about the severity of their condition and less determination for lifestyle changes. CONCLUSION: Patients with NSTEMI in this study expressed very different perceptions of their illness compared to those experiencing STEMI. Patients' clinical presentation and treatment experience during an AMI can impact on their illness perception, motivation for behavioural change and uptake of cardiac rehabilitation. Nurses should consider the patients' illness experience and perception when planning secondary prevention interventions.

Communicating with people who have experienced heart attack.

Presentations of acute myocardial infarction (MI) can be divided into diagnostic subcategories that require different treatments. This article reports the results of a study that explored and compared patients' perceptions of their illness and motivation for behavioural change after different treatments for MI. Results suggest that patients who have had non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI) and whose initial diagnosis is uncertain take their condition less seriously than those who have had STEMI and invasive or 'urgent' treatments. This tendency can make them less motivated to change their lifestyles. Healthcare professionals in emergency departments should be aware of, and address, patients' misconceptions and provide clear and consistent advice to improve their long-term outcomes.

A comparison of Diamond Forrester and coronary calcium scores as gatekeepers for investigations of stable chest pain.

To determine if calcium scores (CS) could act as a more effective gatekeeper than Diamond Forrester (DF) in the assessment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). A sub-study of the Cardiac CT for the Assessment of Chest Pain and Plaque (CAPP) study, a randomised control trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cardiac CT in symptomatic patients with stable chest pain. Stable pain was defined as troponin negative pain without symptoms of unstable angina. 250 patients undergoing cardiac CT had both DF scores and CS calculated, with the accuracy of both evaluated against CT coronary angiogram. Criteria given in UK national guidelines were compared. Of the 250 patients, 4 withdrew. 140 (57 %) patients were male. The mean DF was 47.8 and mean CS 172.5. Of the 144 patients with non-anginal pain 19.4 % had significant disease (>50 % stenosis). In general the DF over estimated the presence of CAD whereas the CS reclassified patients to lower risk groups, with 91 in the high risk DF category compared to 26 in the CS. Both receiver operating curve and McNemar Bowker test analysis suggested the DF was less accurate in the prediction of CAD compared to CS [Formula: see text] Projected downstream investigations were also calculated, with the cost per number of significant stenoses identified cheaper with the CS criteria. Patients with suspected stable CAD are more accurately risk stratified by CS compared to the traditional DF. CS was more successful in the prediction of significant stenosis and appears to be more effective at targeting clinical resources to those patients that are in need of them.