Deborah B. Diercks

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair nnGlenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect nnJeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [∗∗][1]nnNancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA[∗∗][1]nnSana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHAnnKim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACCnnBiykem Bozkurt, MD

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

To ensure that guidelines reflect current knowledge, available treatment options, and optimum medical care, existing clinical practice guideline recommendations are modified and new recommendations are added in response to new data, medications or devices. To keep pace with evolving evidence, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (“Task Force”) has issued this focused update to revise guideline recommendations on the basis of recently published data. This update is not based on a complete literature review from the date of previous guideline publications, but it has been subject to rigorous, multilevel review and approval, similar to the full guidelines. For specific focused update criteria and additional methodological details, please see the ACC/AHA guideline methodology manual.1nn### ModernizationnnIn response to published reports from the Institute of Medicine2,3 and ACC/AHA mandates,4–7 processes have changed leading to adoption of a “knowledge byte” format. This entails delineation of recommendations addressing specific clinical questions, followed by concise text, with hyperlinks to supportive evidence. This approach better accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians, facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology (eg, smart phone apps), and supports the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be …

Treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism with tenecteplase or placebo: cardiopulmonary outcomes at 3 months: multicenter double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomized trial

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can worsen quality of life due to persistent dyspnea or exercise intolerance.

Part 4: Systems of Care and Continuous Quality Improvement 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care

The science and recommendations discussed in the other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) form the backbone of resuscitation. They answer the “why”, “what,” and “when” of performing resuscitation steps. In a perfectly controlled and predictable environment, such as a laboratory setting, those answers often suffice, but the “how” of actual implementation depends on knowing the “who” and “where” as well. The ideal work flow to accomplish resuscitation successfully is highly dependent on the system of care as a whole.nnHealthcare delivery requires structure (eg, people, equipment, education, prospective registry data collection) and process (eg, policies, protocols, procedures), which, when integrated, produce a system (eg, programs, organizations, cultures) leading to outcomes (eg, patient safety, quality, satisfaction). An effective system of care (Figure 1) comprises all of these elements—structure, process, system, and patient outcomes—in a framework of continuous quality improvement (CQI).nnnnFigure 1. nTaxonomy of systems of care.nnnnIn this Part, we will focus on 2 distinct systems of care: the system for patients who arrest inside the hospital and the one for those who arrest outside it. We will set into context the building blocks for a system of care for cardiac arrest, with consideration of the setting, team, and available resources, as well as CQI from the moment the patient becomes unstable until after the patient is discharged.nnThe chain of survival metaphor, first used almost 25 years ago,1 is still very relevant. However, it may be helpful to create 2 separate chains (Figure 2) to reflect the differences in the steps needed for response to cardiac arrest in the hospital (in-hospital cardiac arrest [IHCA]) and out of the hospital (out of hospital cardiac arrest [OHCA]). Regardless of where an arrest occurs, the care following resuscitation converges …

Point-of-care ultrasonography by pediatric emergency medicine physicians

Emergency physicians have used point-of-care ultrasonography since the 1990s. Pediatric emergency medicine physicians have more recently adopted this technology. Point-of-care ultrasonography is used for various scenarios, particularly the evaluation of soft tissue infections or blunt abdominal trauma and procedural guidance. To date, there are no published statements from national organizations specifically for pediatric emergency physicians describing the incorporation of point-of-care ultrasonography into their practice. This document outlines how pediatric emergency departments may establish a formal point-of-care ultrasonography program. This task includes appointing leaders with expertise in point-of-care ultrasonography, effectively training and credentialing physicians in the department, and providing ongoing quality assurance reviews.

Management of Patients on Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Acute Care and Periprocedural Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now widely used as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and management of venous thromboembolism. In clinical practice, there is still widespread uncertainty on how to manage patients on NOACs who bleed or who are at risk for bleeding. Clinical trial data related to NOAC reversal for bleeding and perioperative management are sparse, and recommendations are largely derived from expert opinion. Knowledge of time of last ingestion of the NOAC and renal function is critical to managing these patients given that laboratory measurement is challenging because of the lack of commercially available assays in the United States. Idarucizumab is available as an antidote to rapidly reverse the effects of dabigatran. At present, there is no specific antidote available in the United States for the oral factor Xa inhibitors. Prothrombin concentrate may be considered in life-threatening bleeding. Healthcare institutions should adopt a NOAC reversal and perioperative management protocol developed with multidisciplinary input.

Diagnosing Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnAcute heart failure (AHF) is one of the most common diagnoses assigned to emergency department (ED) patients who are hospitalized. Despite its high prevalence in the emergency setting, the diagnosis of AHF in ED patients with undifferentiated dyspnea can be challenging.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe primary objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the operating characteristics of diagnostic elements available to the emergency physician for diagnosing AHF. Secondary objectives were to develop a test-treatment threshold model and to calculate interval likelihood ratios (LRs) for natriuretic peptides (NPs) by pooling patient-level results.nnnMETHODSnPubMed, EMBASE, and selected bibliographies were searched from January 1965 to March 2015 using MeSH terms to address the ability of the following index tests to predict AHF as a cause of dyspnea in adult patients in the ED: history and physical examination, electrocardiogram, chest radiograph (CXR), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lung ultrasound (US), bedside echocardiography, and bioimpedance. A diagnosis of AHF based on clinical data combined with objective test results served as the criterion standard diagnosis. Data were analyzed using Meta-DiSc software. Authors of all NP studies were contacted to obtain patient-level data. The Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for systematic reviews was utilized to evaluate the quality and applicability of the studies included.nnnRESULTSnBased on the included studies, the prevalence of AHF ranged from 29% to 79%. Index tests with pooled positive LRs ≥ 4 were the auscultation of S3 on physical examination (4.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7 to 5.9), pulmonary edema on both CXR (4.8, 95% CI = 3.6 to 6.4) and lung US (7.4, 95% CI = 4.2 to 12.8), and reduced ejection fraction observed on bedside echocardiogram (4.1, 95% CI = 2.4 to 7.2). Tests with low negative LRs were BNP < 100 pg/mL (0.11, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.16), NT-proBNP < 300 pg/mL (0.09, 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.34), and B-line pattern on lung US LR (0.16, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.51). Interval LRs of BNP concentrations at the low end of positive results as defined by a cutoff of 100 pg/mL were substantially lower (100 to 200 pg/mL; 0.29, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.38) than those associated with higher BNP concentrations (1000 to 1500 pg/mL; 7.12, 95% CI = 4.53 to 11.18). The interval LR of NT-proBNP concentrations even at very high values (30,000 to 200,000 pg/mL) was 3.30 (95% CI = 2.05 to 5.31).nnnCONCLUSIONSnBedside lung US and echocardiography appear to the most useful tests for affirming the presence of AHF while NPs are valuable in excluding the diagnosis.

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUNDnAs a foundation for quality improvement, assessing clinical outcomes across hospitals requires appropriate risk adjustment to account for differences in patient case mix, including presentation after cardiac arrest.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe aim of this study was to develop and validate a parsimonious patient-level clinical risk model of in-hospital mortality for contemporary patients with acute myocardial infarction.nnnMETHODSnPatient characteristics at the time of presentation in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-GWTG (Get With the Guidelines) database from January 2012 through December 2013 were used to develop a multivariate hierarchical logistic regression model predicting in-hospital mortality. The population (243,440 patients from 655 hospitals) was divided into a 60% sample for model derivation, with the remaining 40% used for model validation. A simplified risk score was created to enable prospective risk stratification in clinical care.nnnRESULTSnThe in-hospital mortality rate was 4.6%. Age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, presentation after cardiac arrest, presentation in cardiogenic shock, presentation in heart failure, presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and troponin ratio were all independently associated with in-hospital mortality. The C statistic was 0.88, with good calibration. The model performed well in subgroups based on age; sex; race;xa0transfer status; and the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Observed mortality rates varied substantially across risk groups, ranging from 0.4% in the lowest risk group (scorexa0<30) to 49.5% in the highest risk group (score >59).nnnCONCLUSIONSnThis parsimonious risk model for in-hospital mortality is a valid instrument for risk adjustment andxa0riskxa0stratification in contemporary patients with acute myocardial infarction.

A Consensus Parameter for the Evaluation and Management of Angioedema in the Emergency Department

Despite its relatively common occurrence and life-threatening potential, the management of angioedema in the emergency department (ED) is lacking in terms of a structured approach. It is paramount to distinguish the different etiologies of angioedema from one another and more specifically differentiate histaminergic-mediated angioedema from bradykinin-mediated angioedema, especially in lieu of the more novel treatments that have recently become available for bradykinin-mediated angioedema. With this background in mind, this consensus parameter for the evaluation and management of angioedema attempts to provide a working framework for emergency physicians (EPs) in approaching the patient with angioedema in terms of diagnosis and management in the ED. This consensus parameter was developed from a collaborative effort among a group of EPs and leading allergists with expertise in angioedema. After rigorous debate, review of the literature, and expert opinion, the following consensus guideline document was created. The document has been endorsed by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM).

Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Design Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial. Setting Six emergency departments in the United States. Participants 898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events. Results Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention. Conclusions Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.