Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). However, the optimal timing of CR remains equivocal. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate CR (ICR) with staged CR in patients with ACS and MVD. Our primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. All outcomes were assessed at 3 time points: in-hospital or at 30 days, at 6 months to 1 year, and at >1 year. Data were pooled in RevMan 5.4 using risk ratios as the effect measure. A total of 9 RCTs (7,506 patients) were included in our review. A total of 7 trials enrolled patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 1 enrolled patients with non-STEMI only, and 1 enrolled patients with all types of ACS. There was no difference between ICR and staged CR regarding all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at any time window. ICR reduced the rate of myocardial infarction and decreased the rate of repeat revascularization at 6 months and beyond. The rates of cerebrovascular events and stent thrombosis were similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis demonstrated a lower rate of myocardial infarction and a reduction in repeat revascularization at and after 6 months with ICR strategy in patients with mainly STEMI and MVD. The 2 groups had no difference in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Further RCTs are needed to provide more definitive conclusions and investigate CR strategies in other ACS.

Chest Pain Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department: Current Perspectives.

Chest pain is the second leading cause of all emergency department (ED) visits in adults in the United States, with nearly 11 million encounters yearly. While identifying low-risk patients is crucial for early discharge, identifying high-risk patients in ED is vital in timely and appropriate acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management. Traditional methods such as physical examination, cardiac markers, or imaging tests cannot reliably confirm or rule out ACS; they cannot be singularly incorporated to risk stratify patients. Various clinical risk scores have been proposed to address this challenge for risk stratification in patients being evaluated for suspected ACS. The ideal risk score should demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity to accurately differentiate between patients with varying levels of risk, particularly in identifying those at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Simultaneously, an ideal scoring system should also be able to compute information for other non-coronary etiologies of chest pain that require time-sensitive interventions and workups (eg, aortic dissection and pulmonary embolism). In this review, we have assembled major risk scores used for risk stratification in patients with acute chest pain in ED. We have abbreviated their salient features to assist readers in their clinical decision-making.

Association Between Psychosocial Risk Factors and Readmissions After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Role of COVID-19 Pandemic.

Psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) are known to be associated with worse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. However, there are limited data on the impact of PSRFs on readmissions after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) before and during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic. Therefore, we aimed to examine this association and whether the effects of PSRFs were amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. We queried the 2019 and 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database for adult (age ≥18 years) index admissions with AMI as the primary diagnosis. They were then divided into 2 cohorts based on the presence or absence of ≥1 PSRF and compared across non-COVID-19 (2019) and COVID-19 (2020) time periods. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmissions. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific readmissions (cardiac, noncardiac, AMI, heart failure). Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to evaluate differences in outcomes. The study included 380,820 patients with index AMI, of which 214,384 (56%) had ≥1 PSRFs. Patients with PSRFs were younger, more likely to be female, and had a higher prevalence of CV risk factors. Of 30-day all-cause readmissions were higher in patients with PSRFs in both eras. Moreover, noncardiac and heart failure readmissions were also higher in patients with PSRFs admitted with AMI in 2019 and 2020. This study of a nationally representative population magnifies the association of PSRF with more unplanned readmissions after AMI in both pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 times.

Outcomes of Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-Propensity Matched Regression Analysis.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is indicated in complex interventions. There is a paucity of evidence for outcomes with large studies on using IVUS during PCI in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Our objective was to compare the in-hospital outcome of IVUS-guided with that of nonguided PCI among NSTEMI hospitalizations. The National Inpatient Sample (2016 to 2019) was queried to identify all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of NSTEMI. In our study, we compared outcomes of PCI with and without IVUS guidance using a multivariate logistic regression model after propensity score matching, with the primary outcome being in-hospital mortality. A total of 671,280 NSTEMI-related hospitalizations were identified, of whom 48,285 (7.2%) underwent IVUS-guided PCI compared with 622,995 (92.8%) who underwent non-IVUS PCI. After adjusted analysis on matched pairs, we found that IVUS-guided PCI had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality than that of non-IVUS PCI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.736, confidence interval (CI) 0.578 to 0.937, p = 0.013). However, there was a higher use of mechanical circulatory support in the IVUS-guided PCI (aOR 2.138, CI 1.84 to 2.47, p <0.001) than in non-IVUS PCI. The odds of cardiogenic shock (aOR 1.11, CI 0.93 to 1.32, p = 0.233) and procedural complications (aOR 0.794, CI 0.549 to 1.14, p = 0.22) were similar between the cohorts. Hence, we conclude that patients with NSTEMIs who underwent IVUS-guided PCI had less risk of in-hospital mortality and a greater requirement of mechanical circulatory support than did those who underwent non-IVUS PCI, with no difference in procedural complications. Large prospective trials are essential to validate these findings.

Association of Psychosocial Risk Factors and Outcomes in Heart Failure: Does COVID-19 Affect Outcomes?

Psychosocial risk factors (PSRFs) have emerged as crucial nontraditional risk factors affecting outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). There is a paucity of data studying these risk factors in HF nationally. Additionally, whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacted outcomes remains unexplored, given the increased psychosocial risk during these times. Our objective is to assess the impact of PSRFs on the outcomes of HF and their comparison across non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. Patients with a diagnosis of HF were selected using the 2019-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Two cohorts were created based on the presence or absence of PSRFs and compared across non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras. We examined the association using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models. A total of 305,955 patients were included, of which 175,348 (57%) had PSRFs. Patients with PSRFs were younger, less likely to be female, and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. All-cause readmissions were higher in patients with PSRFs in both the eras. All-cause mortality [odds ratio, OR 1.15 (1.04-1.27), P = 0.005] and composite of MACE [OR 1.11 (1.06-1.16), P < 0.001] were higher in patients in the non-COVID-19 era. Compared to 2019, patients with PSRFs and HF in 2020 had significantly higher all-cause mortality [OR 1.13 (1.03-1.24), P = 0.009]; however, the composite of MACE was comparable [OR 1.04 (1.00-1.09), P = 0.03]. In conclusion, the presence of PSRFs in patients with HF is associated with a significant increase in all-cause readmissions in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 eras. The worse outcomes evident in the COVID-19 era highlights the importance of multidisciplinary care in this vulnerable population.