Relation of Pain-to-Balloon Time and Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Limited and inconsistent data are present regarding the importance of the time delay between symptom onset and balloon inflation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. We aimed to investigate the possible influence of prolonging pain-to-balloon times (PBT) on in-hospital outcomes and mortality in a large cohort of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We retrospectively studied 2,345 STEMI patients (age 61 ± 13 years, 82% men) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were stratified according to PBT into 3 groups: ≤120 minutes, 121 to 360 minutes, and >360 minutes. Patients' records were assessed for the occurrence of in-hospital complications, 30-day, and 1-year mortality. Of the 2,345 study patients, 36% had PBT time ≤120 minutes, 40% had PBT of 121 to 360 minutes and 24% had PBT time >360 minutes. The major part of the total PBT (average 358 minutes) was caused by the time interval from symptom onset to hospital arrival, namely, pain-to-door time (average 312 minutes) in all 3 groups. Longer PBT was associated with a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher incidence of in-hospital complications, and higher 30-day mortality. In 2 multivariate cox regression models, a per-hour increase in PBT (hazard ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.06], p = 0.039) as well as PBT >360 minutes (hazard ratio 1.6 [95% confidence interval 1.1 to 2.5], p = 0.04) were both independently associated with an increased risk for 1-year mortality. In conclusion, PBT may be an accurate and independent marker for adverse events, pointing to the importance of coronary reperfusion as early as possible based on the onset of pain.

Resource Utilization Following Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Chest Pain.

This study aimed to assess long-term resource utilization and outcomes in patients with acute chest pain who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and stress echocardiography (SE). This was a retrospective, propensity-matched analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. There were 3,816 patients matched 1:1 who received either CCTA (n = 1,908) or SE (n = 1,908). Patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 with a primary diagnosis of chest pain and received either CCTA or SE within 72 hours as the first noninvasive test and maintained continuous enrollment in the database from the time of the ED encounter through December 31, 2014. All individual patient data were censored at 3 years. Compared with SE, CCTA was associated with higher odds of downstream cardiac catheterization (9.9% vs 7.7%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.63), future noninvasive testing (27.7% vs 22.3%, AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42), and return ED visits or hospitalization for chest pain at 3 years (33.1% vs 24.2%, AOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59). There were no statistically significant differences in new statin use (15.5% vs 14.9%, AOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28), coronary revascularization (2.7% vs 2.2%, AOR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.01) or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0.9%, AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.99). In conclusion, in patients who present to the ED with chest pain, CCTA is associated with increased downstream resource utilization compared with SE with no differences in long-term cardiovascular outcomes.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Applications of machine learning to undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is amongst the most common reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED). There are many causes of chest pain, and it is important for the emergency physician to quickly and accurately diagnose life threatening causes such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Multiple clinical decision tools have been developed to assist clinicians in risk stratifying patients with chest. There is growing recognition that machine learning (ML) will have a significant impact on the practice of medicine in the near future and may assist with diagnosis and risk stratification. This systematic review aims to evaluate how ML has been applied to adults presenting to the ED with undifferentiated chest pain and assess if ML models show improved performance when compared to physicians or current risk stratification techniques. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review of journal articles that applied a ML technique to an adult patient presenting to an emergency department with undifferentiated chest pain. Multiple databases were searched from inception through to November 2020. In total, 3361 articles were screened, and 23 articles were included. We did not conduct a metanalysis due to a high level of heterogeneity between studies in both their methods, and reporting. The most common primary outcomes assessed were diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12 studies), and prognosis of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (6 studies). There were 14 retrospective studies and 5 prospective studies. Four studies reported the development of a machine learning model retrospectively then tested it prospectively. The most common machine learning methods used were artificial neural networks (14 studies), random forest (6 studies), support vector machine (5 studies), and gradient boosting (2 studies). Multiple studies achieved high accuracy in both the diagnosis of AMI in the ED setting, and in predicting mortality and composite outcomes over various timeframes. ML outperformed existing risk stratification scores in all cases, and physicians in three out of four cases. The majority of studies were single centre, retrospective, and without prospective or external validation. There were only 3 studies that were considered low risk of bias and had low applicability concerns. Two studies reported integrating the ML model into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Research on applications of ML for undifferentiated chest pain in the ED has been ongoing for decades. ML has been reported to outperform emergency physicians and current risk stratification tools to diagnose AMI and predict MACE but has rarely been integrated into practice. Many studies assessing the use of ML in undifferentiated chest pain in the ED have a high risk of bias. It is important that future studies make use of recently developed standardised ML reporting guidelines, register their protocols, and share their datasets and code. Future work is required to assess the impact of ML model implementation on clinical decision making, patient orientated outcomes, and patient and physician acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD42020184977.

Implementation of a practice plan for the outpatient cardiac evaluation of children after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and a report of outcomes.

SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with cardiovascular disease in children, but which children need cardiac evaluation is unclear. We describe our experience evaluating 206 children for cardiac disease following SARS-CoV-2 infection (one of whom had ventricular ectopy) and propose a new guideline for management of these children. Routine cardiac screening after SARS-CoV-2 infection in children without any cardiac signs or symptoms does not appear to be high yield.

Impact of coronary risk scores on disposition decision in emergency patients with chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Coronary risk scores (CRS) including History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk Factors, Troponin (HEART) score and Emergency Department Assessment of Chest pain Score (EDACS) can help identify patients at low risk of major adverse cardiac events. In the emergency department (ED), there are wide variations in hospital admission rates among patients with chest pain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CRS on the disposition of patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome in the ED. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 3660 adult patients who presented to the ED with chest pain between January and July in 2019. Study inclusion criteria were age > 18 years and a primary position International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th revision coded diagnosis of angina pectoris (I20.0-I20.9) or chronic ischemic heart disease (I25.0-I25.9) by the treating ED physician. If the treating ED physician completed the electronic structured variables for CRS calculation to assist disposition planning, then the patient would be classified as the CRS group; otherwise, the patient was included in the control group. RESULTS: Among the 2676 patients, 746 were classified into the CRS group, whereas the other 1930 were classified into the control group. There was no significant difference in sex, age, initial vital signs, and ED length of stay between the two groups. The coronary risk factors were similar between the two groups, except for a higher incidence of smokers in the CRS group (19.6% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.031). Compared with the control group, significantly more patients were discharged (70.1% vs. 64.6%) directly from the ED, while fewer patients who were hospitalized (25.9% vs. 29.7%) or against-advise discharge (AAD) (2.6% vs. 4.0%) in the CRS group. Major adverse cardiac events and mortality at 60 days between the two groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: A higher ED discharge rate of the group using CRS may indicate that ED physicians have more confidence in discharging low-risk patients based on CRS.

A risk score for pericarditis recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Currently, we remain uncertain about which patients are at increased risk for recurrent pericarditis. We developed a risk score for pericarditis recurrence in patients with acute pericarditis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively recruited 262 patients with a first episode of acute pericarditis. Baseline patients' demographics, clinical, imaging and laboratory data were collected. Patients were followed up for a median of 51 months (interquartile range 21-71) for recurrence. Variables with <10% missingness were entered into multivariable logistic regression models with stepwise elimination to explore independent predictors of recurrence. The final model performance was assessed by the c-index whereas model's calibration and optimism-corrected c-index were evaluated after 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: We identified six independent predictors for pericarditis recurrence, that is age, effusion size, platelet count (negative predictors) and reduced inferior vena cava collapse, in-hospital use of corticosteroids and heart rate (positive predictors). The final model had good performance for recurrence, c-index 0.783 (95% CI 0.725-0.842), while the optimism-corrected c-index after cross-validation was 0.752. Based on these variables, we developed a risk score point system for recurrence (0-22 points) with equally good performance (c-index 0.740, 95% CI 0.677-0.803). Patients with a low score (0-7 points) had 21.3% risk for recurrence, while those with high score (≥12 points) had a 69.8% risk for recurrence. The score was predictive of recurrence among most patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk score point system based on 6 variables can be used to predict the individualized risk for pericarditis recurrence among patients with a first episode of acute pericarditis.

Polygenic Risk Score-Enhanced Risk Stratification of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Stable Chest Pain.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), but the clinical potential of using PRSs at the single-patient level for risk stratification has yet to be established. We investigated whether adding a PRS to clinical risk factors (CRFs) improves risk stratification in patients referred to coronary computed tomography angiography on a suspicion of obstructive CAD. METHODS: In this prespecified diagnostic substudy of the Dan-NICAD trial (Danish study of Non-Invasive testing in Coronary Artery Disease), we included 1617 consecutive patients with stable chest symptoms and no history of CAD referred for coronary computed tomography angiography. CRFs used for risk stratification were age, sex, symptoms, prior or active smoking, antihypertensive treatment, lipid-lowering treatment, and diabetes. In addition, patients were genotyped, and their PRSs were calculated. All patients underwent coronary computed tomography angiography. Patients with a suspected ≥50% stenosis also underwent invasive coronary angiography with fractional flow reserve. A combined end point of obstructive CAD was defined as a visual invasive coronary angiography stenosis >90%, fractional flow reserve <0.80, or a quantitative coronary analysis stenosis >50% if fractional flow reserve measurements were not feasible. RESULTS: The PRS was associated with obstructive CAD independent of CRFs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.5-2.2] per SD). The PRS had an area under the curve of 0.63 (0.59-0.68), which was similar to that for age and sex. Combining the PRS with CRFs led to a CRF+PRS model with area under the curve of 0.75 (0.71-0.79), which was 0.04 more than the CRF model (P=0.0029). By using pretest probability (pretest probability) cutoffs at 5% and 15%, a net reclassification improvement of 15.8% (P=3.1×10-4) was obtained, with a down-classification of risk in 24% of patients (211 of 862) in whom the pretest probability was 5% to 15% based on CRFs alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a PRS improved risk stratification of obstructive CAD beyond CRFs, suggesting a modest clinical potential of using PRSs to guide diagnostic testing in the contemporary clinical setting. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02264717.

Incremental value of QT interval for the prediction of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chest pain.

Identification of obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) in patients with chest pain is a clinical challenge. The value of corrected QT interval (QTc) for the prediction of OCAD has yet to be established. We consecutively enrolled 1741 patients with suspected angina. The presence of obstructive OCAD was defined as ≥ 50% diameter stenosis by coronary angiography. The pre-test probability was evaluated by combining QTc prolongation with the CAD Consortium clinical score (CAD2) and the updated Diamond-Forrester (UDF) score. OCAD was detected in 661 patients (38.0%). QTc was longer in patients with OCAD compared with those without OCAD (444 ± 34 vs. 429 ± 28 ms, p < 0.001). QTc was increased by the severity of OCAD (P < 0.001). QTc prolongation was associated with OCAD (odds ratio (OR), 2.27; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-2.85). With QTc, the C-statistics increased significantly from 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.71) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.74-0.78) in the CAD2 and from 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.67) to 0.74 (95% CI 0.72-0.77) in the UDF score, respectively. QT prolongation predicted the presence of OCAD and the QTc improved model performance to predict OCAD compared with CAD2 or UDF scores in patients with suspected angina.

Sex Differences in Coronary Arterial Calcification in Symptomatic Patients.

Despite the increasing use of Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) scoring for cardiovascular risk stratification in asymptomatic patients, the gender differences in CAC among symptomatic patients have not been well evaluated. We analyzed patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain suggesting possible coronary artery disease (CAD) who received coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the odds ratio for the association of traditional cardiovascular risk factors and CAC. Patients with a CAC score ≥ 100 were followed for cardiovascular events or changes in medical management. Our cohort included 542 individuals (263 male, 279 female). Ordinal logistic regression model showed that among traditional cardiovascular risk factors, male sex had the highest odds ratio (OR) of 3.04 (p < 0.001, 95% CI [2.01, 4.59]) for the presence of CAC. Also, males had more diffuse distribution of coronary atherosclerosis (p=0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that obesity was a bigger risk factor in male patients (OR 2.16), while smoking showed the greatest effect (OR 4.27) on CAC in women. Of patients who had CAC > 100 with an average follow-up of 346 days, there was an increase in both aspirin and statin use, yet significant sex differences were observed especially in patients with non-obstructive lesions on CCTA. Among male patients with non-obstructive lesions, 68.2% were on aspirin and 86.4% were on statin therapy after the CCTA compared to 27.3% and 45.5% respectively in their female counterparts. In conclusion, sex not only is the most powerful predictor for higher CAC among traditional cardiovascular risk factors in symptomatic patients but also influences the contribution of various traditional risk factors to elevated CAC. Furthermore, the discovery of CAD led to the initiation of medical therapy in male patients more frequently than in female patients, even after adjusting for the degree of luminal stenosis detected on coronary CT angiography.

Neurological Causes of Chest Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chest pain is a very common presenting complaint among patients in the hospital, a large proportion of whom have non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP). Neurological causes of NCCP have not been previously reviewed although several causes have been identified. RECENT FINDINGS: Chest pain has been reported as a symptom of multiple neurological conditions such as migraine, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis, with varying clinical presentations. The affected patients are often not formally diagnosed for long periods of time due to difficulties in recognizing the symptoms as part of neurological disease processes. This paper will briefly summarize well-known etiologies of chest pain and, then, review neurological causes of NCCP, providing an overview of current literature and possible pathophysiologic mechanisms.

Chicago Classification Update (v4.0): Technical review on diagnostic criteria for distal esophageal spasm.

Distal esophageal spasm (DES) is defined as a manometric pattern of at least 20% of premature contractions in a context of normal esophago-gastric junction relaxation in a patient with dysphagia or non-cardiac chest pain. The definition of premature contraction requires the measurement of the distal latency and identification of the contractile deceleration point (CDP). The CDP can be difficult to localize, and alternative methods are proposed. Further, it is important to differentiate contractile activity and intrabolus pressure. Multiple rapid swallows are a useful adjunctive test to perform during high-resolution manometry to search for a lack of inhibition that is encountered in DES. The clinical relevance of the DES-manometric pattern was raised as it can be secondary to treatment with opioids or observed in patients referred for esophageal manometry before antireflux surgery in absence of dysphagia and non-cardiac chest pain. Further idiopathic DES is rare, and one can argue that when encountered, it could be part of type III achalasia spectrum. Medical treatment of DES can be challenging. Recently, endoscopic treatments with botulinum toxin and peroral endoscopic myotomy have been evaluated, with conflicting results while rigorously controlled studies are lacking. Future research is required to determine the role of contractile vigor and lower esophageal sphincter hypercontractility in the occurrence of symptoms in patients with DES. The role of impedance-combined high-resolution manometry also needs to be evaluated.

Association of Age With Likelihood of Developing Symptoms and Critical Disease Among Close Contacts Exposed to Patients With Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Italy.

Importance: Solid estimates of the risk of developing symptoms and of progressing to critical disease in individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are key to interpreting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) dynamics, identifying the settings and the segments of the population where transmission is more likely to remain undetected, and defining effective control strategies. Objective: To estimate the association of age with the likelihood of developing symptoms and the association of age with the likelihood of progressing to critical illness after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed quarantined case contacts, identified between February 20 and April 16, 2020, in the Lombardy region of Italy. Contacts were monitored daily for symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, by either real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction using nasopharyngeal swabs or retrospectively via IgG serological assays. Close contacts of individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were selected as those belonging to clusters (ie, groups of contacts associated with an index case) where all individuals were followed up for symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were analyzed from February to June 2020. Exposure: Close contact with individuals with confirmed COVID-19 cases as identified by contact tracing operations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-specific estimates of the risk of developing respiratory symptoms or fever greater than or equal to 37.5 °C and of experiencing critical disease (defined as requiring intensive care or resulting in death) in SARS-CoV-2-infected case contacts. Results: In total, 5484 case contacts (median [interquartile range] age, 50 [30-61] years; 3086 female contacts [56.3%]) were analyzed, 2824 of whom (51.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median [interquartile range] age, 53 [34-64] years; 1604 female contacts [56.8%]). The proportion of infected persons who developed symptoms ranged from 18.1% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.9%) among participants younger than 20 years to 64.6% (95% CI, 56.6%-72.0%) for those aged 80 years or older. Most infected contacts (1948 of 2824 individuals [69.0%]) did not develop respiratory symptoms or fever greater than or equal to 37.5 °C. Only 26.1% (95% CI, 24.1%-28.2%) of infected individuals younger than 60 years developed respiratory symptoms or fever greater than or equal to 37.5 °C; among infected participants older than 60 years, 6.6% (95% CI, 5.1%-8.3%) developed critical disease. Female patients were 52.7% (95% CI, 24.4%-70.7%) less likely than male patients to develop critical disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this Italian cohort study of close contacts of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, more than one-half of individuals tested positive for the virus. However, most infected individuals did not develop respiratory symptoms or fever. The low proportion of children and young adults who developed symptoms highlights the possible challenges in readily identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections.