Risk-adjusted management in catheterization procedures for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A standard operating procedure pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of standardized risk-adjusted periprocedural management of cardiac catheterization procedures in Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remain unknown. We implemented a standard operating procedure (SOP) specifying risk assessment (RA, using National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk models) and risk-adjusted management (RM, e.g. intensified monitoring) in 2018 and aimed to investigate staff SOP adherence and associations with patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 430 invasively managed NSTEMI patients (mean age 72y; 70.9% male) in 2018 were analyzed for staff SOP adherence and in-hospital clinical outcomes. 207 patients (48.1%; RM+) received both RA and RM; 92 patients (21.4%; RM-) received RA but no RM; 131 patients (30.5%; RA-) received neither RA nor RM. Lower staff adherence to RA was associated with emergency settings (51.9% (RA-) vs. 22.1% (RA+); p<0.01), presentation in cardiogenic shock (17.6% (RA-) vs. 6.4% (RA+); p<0.01) and invasive mechanical ventilation (12.2% (RA-) vs. 3.3% (RA+); p<0.01). Early sheath removal (87.9% (RM+) vs. 56.5% (RM-); p<0.01) and intensified monitoring (p<0.01) were more frequent in the RM+ group. All-cause mortality was not different (1.4% (RM+) vs. 4.3% (RM-); p=0.13), but there were fewer major bleeding events with associated with RM (2.4% (RM+) vs. 12% (RM-); p<0.01), which remained independently associated with RM in a multivariate logistic regression model correcting for confounders (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In an all-comer patient cohort with NSTEMI, staff adherence to risk-adjusted periprocedural management was independently associated with fewer major bleeding events. Staff adherence to SOP-specified risk assessment was frequently neglected in more critical clinical situations.

National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR) vs. Mehran risk models for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy and need for dialysis after coronary angiography in a German patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major adverse event in patients undergoing coronary angiography. The Mehran risk model is the gold-standard for CIN risk prediction. However, its performance in comparison to more contemporary National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR-AKI) risk models remains unknown. We aimed to compare both in this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Predictions of Mehran and NCDR-AKI risk models and clinical events of CIN and need for dialysis were assessed in a total of 2067 patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk models were compared regarding discrimination (receiver operating characteristic analysis), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and calibration (graphical and statistical analysis). The NCDR risk model showed superior risk discrimination for predicting CIN (NCDR c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78; vs. Mehran c-index 0.69, 95% CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.01), and continuous NRI (0.22; 95% CI 0.12-0.32; p < 0.01) compared to the Mehran model. The NCDR risk model tended to underestimate the risk of CIN, while the Mehran model was more evenly calibrated. For the prediction of need for dialysis, NCDR-AKI-D also discriminated risk better (c-index 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91; vs. Mehran c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.84; pNCDRvsMehran < 0.01), but continuous NRI showed no benefit and calibration analysis revealed an underestimation of dialysis risk. CONCLUSION: In German patients undergoing coronary angiography, the modern NCDR risk model for predicting contrast-induced nephropathy showed superior discrimination compared to the Mehran model while showing less accurate calibration. Results for the outcome 'need for dialysis' were equivocal.

Modern NCDR and ACTION risk models outperform the GRACE model for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome in a German cohort.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, pGRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; pACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; pGRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (pGRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, pGRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); pGRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.