Assessment and Application of the Hear Score in Remote Emergency Medicine Outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Background and Objectives. In emergency departments, chest pain is a common concern, highlighting the critical importance of distinguishing between acute coronary syndrome and other potential causes. Our research aimed to introduce and implement the HEAR score, specifically, in remote emergency outposts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Materials and Methods. This follow-up study conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort consisting of patients who were admitted to the remote emergency medicine outposts in Canton Sarajevo and Zenica from 1 November to 31 December 2023. Results. This study comprised 103 (12.9%) patients with low-risk HEAR scores and 338 (83.8%) with high-risk HEAR scores, primarily female (221, 56.9%), with a mean age of 63.5 ± 11.2). Patients with low-risk HEAR scores were significantly younger (50.5 ± 15.6 vs. 65.9 ± 12.1), had fewer smokers (p < 0.05), and exhibited a lower incidence of cardiovascular risk factors compared to those with high-risk HEAR scores. Low-risk HEAR score for prediction of AMI had a sensitivity of 97.1% (95% CI 89.9-99.6%); specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 19.82% (95% CI 18.67-21.03%), and NPV of 98.08% (95% CI 92.80-99.51%). Within 30 days of the admission to the emergency department outpost, out of all 441 patients, 100 (22.7%) were diagnosed with MACE, with AMI 69 (15.6%), 3 deaths (0.7%), 6 (1.4%) had a CABG, and 22 (4.9%) underwent PCI. A low-risk HEAR score had a sensitivity of 97.0% (95% CI 91.7-99.4%) and specificity of 27.3% (95% CI 22.8-32.1%); PPV of 25.5% (95% CI 25.59-28.37%); NPV of 97.14% (95% CI 91.68-99.06%) for 30-day MACE. Conclusions. In conclusion, the outcomes of this study align with existing research, underscoring the effectiveness of the HEAR score in risk stratification for patients with chest pain. In practical terms, the implementation of the HEAR score in clinical decision-making processes holds significant promise.

Drugs for spontaneous coronary dissection: a few untrusted options.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome that is often overlooked, misdiagnosed, and maltreated. Medical treatment poses a significant challenge because of the lack of randomized studies to guide treatment. The initial clinical presentation should guide medical and interventional management. Fibrinolytic agents and anticoagulants should be avoided because they could favor hematoma propagation. In patients with SCAD, antiplatelet therapy should be prescribed especially dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel, whereas potent P2Y12 inhibitors, e.g., ticagrelor and prasugrel, should be avoided. If a stent was used, DAPT should be continued for 12 months. Aspirin only can be an option for patients without "high-risk" angiographic features-thrombus burden, critical stenosis, and decreased coronary flow. Beta-blocking (BB) agents should be used to prevent recurrence of SCAD. There is a general agreement that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and loop diuretics should be used in patients with SCAD experiencing the symptoms of heart failure and a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction below 50%. Although without firm evidence, statins can be used in SCAD due to their pleiotropic properties. The results of a randomized trial on the use of BB and statins are awaited. Aggregation of data from national registries might point out truly beneficial medications for patients with SCAD.

HEART Score and Its Implementation in Emergency Medicine Departments in the West Balkan Region-A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain represents a prevalent complaint in emergency departments (EDs), where the precise differentiation between acute coronary syndrome and alternative conditions assumes paramount significance. This pilot study aimed to assess the HEART score's implementation in West Balkan EDs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospective cohort comprising patients presenting with chest pain admitted to EDs in Sarajevo, Zenica, and Belgrade between July and December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were included, with 128 classified as low-risk based on the HEART score and 175 classified as moderate-to-high-risk. The low-risk patients exhibited younger age and a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Laboratory and anamnestic findings revealed higher levels of C-reactive protein, ALT, and creatinine, higher rates of moderately to highly suspicious chest pain history, a greater number of cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated troponin levels in moderate-to-high-risk patients. Comparatively, among patients with a low HEART score, 2.3% experienced MACE, whereas those with a moderate-to high-risk HEART score had a MACE rate of 10.2%. A moderate-to-high-risk HEART score demonstrated a sensitivity of 91.2% (95%CI 90.2-93.4%) and specificity of 46.5% (95%CI 39.9-48.3%) for predicting MACE. CONCLUSION: This pilot study offers preliminary insights into the integration of the HEART score within the emergency departments of the West Balkan region.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Presenting during On- and Off-Hours: Is There a Difference in a Tertiary Cardiovascular Center?

Background and Objectives: ACS presents an acute manifestation of coronary artery disease and its treatment is based on timely interventional diagnostics and PCI. It has been known that the treatment and the outcomes are not the same for all the patients with ACS during the working day, depending on the availability of the procedures and staff. The aim of the study was to explore the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients admitted for ACS during on- and off-hours. Materials and Methods: The retrospective study included 1873 consecutive ACS patients admitted to a tertiary, university hospital that underwent coronary angiography and intervention. On-hours were defined from Monday to Friday from 07:30 h to 14:30 h, while the rest was considered off-hours. Results: There were more males in the off-hours group (on-hours 475 (56%) vs. off-hours 635 (62%); p = 0.011), while previous MI was more frequent in the on-hours group (on 250 (30%) vs. off 148 (14%); p < 0.001). NSTEMI was more frequent during on-hours (on 164 (19%) vs. off 55 (5%); p < 0.001), while STEMI was more frequent during off-hours (on 585 (69%) vs. off 952 (93%); p < 0.001). Patients admitted during on-hours had more multivessel disease (MVD) (on 485 (57%) vs. off 489 (48%); p = 0.006), as well as multivessel PCI (on 187 (22%) vs. off 171 (16%); p = 0.002), while radial access was preferred in off-hours patients (on 692 (82%) vs. off 883 (86%); p = 0.004). Left main PCI was performed with similar frequency in both groups (on 37 (4%) vs. off 35 (3%); p = 0.203). Death occurred with similar frequency in both groups (on 17 (2.0%) vs. off 26 (2.54%); p = 0.404), while major adverse cardio-cerebral events (MACCEs) were more frequent in the on-hours group (on 105 (12.4%) vs. off 70 (6.8%); p = 0.039) probably due to the more frequent repeated PCI (on 49 (5.8%) vs. off 27 (2.6%); p = 0.035). Conclusions: Patients admitted for ACS during working hours in a tertiary hospital present with more complex CAD, have more demanding interventions, and experience more MACCEs during follow-up mostly due to myocardial infarctions and repeated procedures.