W. Douglas Weaver

1999 Update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction)

Executive Summary andListing of Recommendations These guidelines are intended for physicians, nurses, and allied healthcare personnel who care for patients with suspected or established acute myocardial infarction (MI). These guidelines have been officially endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. This executive summary and listing of recommendations appears in the November 1, 1996, issue of Circulation. The guidelines in their entirety, including the ACC/AHA Class I, II, and III recommendations, are published in the November 1996 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Beginning with these guidelines, the full text of ACC/AHA guidelines will be published in one journal and the executive summary and listing of recommendations in the other . Reprints of both the full text and the executive summary with its listing of recommendations are available from both organizations. Each year 900 000 people in the United States experience acute MI. Of these, roughly 225 000 die, including 125 000 who die “in the field” before obtaining medical care. Most of these deaths are arrhythmic in etiology. Because early reperfusion treatment of patients with acute MI improves left ventricular (LV) systolic function and survival, every effort must be made to minimize prehospital delay. Indeed, efforts are ongoing to promote rapid identification and treatment of patients with acute MI, including (1) patient education about the symptoms of acute MI and appropriate actions to take and (2) prompt initial care of the patient by the community emergency medical system. In treating the patient with chest pain, emergency medical system personnel must act with a sense of urgency. When the patient with suspected acute MI reaches the emergency department (ED), evaluation and initial management should take place promptly, because the benefit of reperfusion therapy is greatest if therapy …

Predictors of 30-Day Mortality in the Era of Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Results From an International Trial of 41 021 Patients

BACKGROUND Despite remarkable advances in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, substantial early patient mortality remains. Appropriate choices among alternative therapies and the use of clinical resources depend on an estimate of the patients risk. Individual patients reflect a combination of clinical features that influence prognosis, and these factors must be appropriately weighted to produce an accurate assessment of risk. Prior studies to define prognosis either were performed before widespread use of thrombolysis or were limited in sample size or spectrum of data. Using the large population of the GUSTO-I trial, we performed a comprehensive analysis of relations between baseline clinical data and 30-day mortality and developed a multivariable statistical model for risk assessment in candidates for thrombolytic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS For the 41,021 patients enrolled in GUSTO-I, a randomized trial of four thrombolytic strategies, relations between clinical descriptors routinely collected at initial presentation, and death within 30 days (which occurred in 7% of the population) were examined with both univariable and multivariable analyses. Variables studied included demographics, history and risk factors, presenting characteristics, and treatment assignment. Risk modeling was performed with logistic multiple regression and validated with bootstrapping techniques. Multivariable analysis identified age as the most significant factor influencing 30-day mortality, with rates of 1.1% in the youngest decile (< 45 years) and 20.5% in patients > 75 (adjusted chi 2 = 717, P < .0001). Other factors most significantly associated with increased mortality were lower systolic blood pressure (chi 2 = 550, P < .0001), higher Killip class (chi 2 = 350, P < .0001), elevated heart rate (chi 2 = 275, P < .0001), and anterior infarction (chi 2 = 143, P < .0001). Together, these five characteristics contained 90% of the prognostic information in the baseline clinical data. Other significant though less important factors included previous myocardial infarction, height, time to treatment, diabetes, weight, smoking status, type of thrombolytic, previous bypass surgery, hypertension, and prior cerebrovascular disease. Combining prognostic variables through logistic regression, we produced a validated model that stratified patient risk and accurately estimated the likelihood of death. CONCLUSIONS The clinical determinants of mortality in patients treated with thrombolytic therapy within 6 hours of symptom onset are multifactorial and the relations complex. Although a few variables contain most of the prognostic information, many others contribute additional independent prognostic information. Through consideration of multiple characteristics, including age, medical history, physiological significance of the infarction, and medical treatment, the prognosis of an individual patient can be accurately estimated.

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association request that the following format be used when citing this document: Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, Califf RM, Hillis LD, Hiratzka LF, Rapaport E, Riegel B, Russell RO, Smith EE III, Weaver WD. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction: 1999 update: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). Available at http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines and http://www.americanheart.org. Accessed on [insert date].

Sex, Clinical Presentation, and Outcome in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Studies have reported that women with acute myocardial infarction have in-hospital and long-term outcomes that are worse than those of men. METHODS To assess sex-based differences in presentation and outcome, we examined data from the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes IIb study, which enrolled 12,142 patients (3662 women and 8480 men) with acute coronary syndromes, including infarction with ST-segment elevation, infarction with no ST-segment elevation, and unstable angina. RESULTS Overall, the women were older than the men, and had significantly higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and prior congestive heart failure. They had significantly lower rates of prior myocardial infarction and were less likely ever to have smoked. A smaller percentage of women than men had infarction with ST elevation (27.2 percent vs. 37.0 percent, P<0.001), and of the patients who presented with no ST elevation (those with myocardial infarction or unstable angina), fewer women than men had myocardial infarction (36.6 percent vs. 47.6 percent, P<0.001). Women had more complications than men during hospitalization and a higher mortality rate at 30 days (6.0 percent vs. 4.0 percent, P<0.001) but had similar rates of reinfarction at 30 days after presentation. However, there was a significant interaction between sex and the type of coronary syndrome at presentation (P=0.001). After stratification according to coronary syndrome and adjustment for base-line variables, there was a nonsignificant trend toward an increased risk of death or reinfarction among women as compared with men only in the group with infarction and ST elevation (odds ratio, 1.27; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 1.63; P=0.07). Among patients with unstable angina, female sex was associated with an independent protective effect (odds ratio for infarction or death, 0.65; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.87; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS Women and men with acute coronary syndromes had different clinical profiles, presentation, and outcomes. These differences could not be entirely accounted for by differences in base-line characteristics and may reflect pathophysiologic and anatomical differences between men and women.

Acute Coronary Care in the Elderly, Part I Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: In Collaboration With the Society of Geriatric Cardiology

Background— Age is an important determinant of outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS); however, community practice reveals a disproportionately lower use of cardiovascular medications and invasive treatment even among elderly patients with ACS who would stand to benefit. Reasons include limited trial data to guide the care of older adults and uncertainty about benefits and risks, particularly with newer medications or invasive treatments and in the setting of advanced age or complex health status. Methods and Results— This 2-part American Heart Association scientific statement summarizes evidence on patient heterogeneity, clinical presentation, and treatment of non–ST-elevation ACS in relation to age (<65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years). In addition, we review methodological issues that influence the acquisition and application of evidence to the elderly patients treated in community practice. A writing group combining international cardiovascular and geriatric perspectives convened to summarize available data from trials (5 combined Virtual Coordinating Center for Global Collaborative Cardiovascular Research [VIGOUR] trials) and 3 registries (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events, National Registry of Myocardial Infarction, and the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines national quality improvement initiative [CRUSADE]) to provide a conceptual framework for future work in the care of the elderly with acute cardiac disease. Treatment for non–ST-segment–elevation ACS (Part I) and ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (Part II) are reviewed. In addition, ethical considerations pertaining to acute care and secondary prevention are considered (Part II). The primary goal is to identify the areas in which sufficient evidence is available to guide practice, as well as to determine areas that warrant further study. Although treatment-related benefits should rise in an elderly population with high disease risk, data to assess these benefits are limited, outcomes of importance vary, and heterogeneity among the elderly increases treatment-related risks. Although a uniform approach to care in the oldest of the old is unlikely, understanding the major contributors to benefits and risks from treatment will advance the ability to apply guideline-based care in this subset of patients. Conclusions— Although a few recent trials have described treatment effects in older patients, others continue to exclude patients on the basis of age. Going forward, prospective trials should enroll elderly subjects proportionate to their prevalence among the treated population to define risk and benefit. Findings from age subgroup analyses should be reported in a consistent manner across trials, including absolute and relative risks for efficacy and safety. Outcomes of particular relevance to the elderly, such as quality of life, physical function, and independence, should also be considered. Creatinine clearance should be calculated for every elderly patient to enable appropriate dosing. In addition, physicians need an understanding of conditions unique to older patients (eg, frailty, cognitive impairment) that influence treatment goals and outcomes. With these efforts, treatment risks can be minimized, and benefits can be placed in the health context of the elderly patient with ACS.

CONFIRMATION OF A HEART FAILURE EPIDEMIC: FINDINGS FROM THE RESOURCE UTILIZATION AMONG CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE (REACH) STUDY

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to create an automated surveillance tool for reporting the incidence, prevalence and processes of care for patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND Previous epidemiologic studies suggest that the increasing prevalence of heart failure is a consequence of improved survival coupled with minimal changes in disease prevention. Developing new, efficient methods of assessing the incidence and prevalence of heart failure could allow continued surveillance of these rates during an era of rapidly changing treatments and health care delivery patterns. METHODS Using administrative data sets, we created a definition of heart failure using diagnosis codes. After adjustment for patients leaving our health system or death, we derived the incidence, prevalence and mortality of the population with heart failure from 1989 to 1999. RESULTS A total of 29,686 patients of all ages, 52.6% women and 47.4% men, met the definition of heart failure. Mean ages were 71.1 +/- 14.5 for women and 67.7 +/- 14.4 for men, p < 0.0001. Race proportions were 50.5% white, 44.6% African American and 4.9% other race. Incidence rates were higher in men and African Americans across all age groups. There was an annual increase in prevalence of 1/1,000 for women and 0.9/1,000 for men, p = 0.001 for both trends. CONCLUSIONS Through the feasible and valid use of automated data, we have confirmed a chronic disease epidemic of heart failure manifested primarily by an increase in prevalence over the past decade. Our surveillance system mirrors the results of epidemiologic studies and may be a valid method for monitoring the impact of prevention and treatment programs.

ACC/AHA Clinical Performance Measures for Adults With ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Performance Measures on ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction)

ACC/AHA TASK FORCE ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH, FACC, Chair; Robert O. Bonow, MD, MACC, FAHA#; Elizabeth DeLong, PhD; N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, FACC, FAHA; David C. Goff, Jr, MD, PhD, FAHA, FACP; Kathleen Grady, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN; Lee A. Green, MD, MPH; Ann Loth, RN, MS, CNS; Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA; Martha J. Radford, MD, FACC, FAHA; John S. Rumsfeld, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA; David M. Shahian, MD, FACC

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis.

Background— Aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or undergoing coronary stenting. Ticagrelor, a reversible oral P2Y12-receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel and may be useful for patients with acute ST-segment elevation (STE) ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Result— Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), a randomized, double-blind trial, compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel for the prevention of vascular events in 18 624 ACS patients. This report concerns the 7544 ACS patients with STE or left bundle-branch block allocated to either ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 300-mg loading dose (with provision for 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention) followed by 75 mg daily for 6 to 12 months. The reduction of the primary end point (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (10.8% versus 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.07) was consistent with the overall PLATO results. There was no interaction between presentation with STE/left bundle-branch block and randomized treatment (interaction P=0.29). Ticagrelor reduced several secondary end points, including myocardial infarction alone (HR, 0.80; P=0.03), total mortality (HR, 0.82; P=0.05), and definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.66; P=0.03). The risk of stroke, low in both groups, was higher with ticagrelor (1.7% versus 1.0%; HR,1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 2.48; P=0.02). Ticagrelor did not affect major bleeding (HR, 0.98; P=0.76). Conclusion— In patients with STE-ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the effects of ticagrelor were consistent with those observed in the overall PLATO trial. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872.

A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: The air primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction study

OBJECTIVES The Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) study was designed to determine the best reperfusion strategy for patients with high-risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at hospitals without percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) capability. BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested that high-risk patients have better outcomes with primary PTCA than with thrombolytic therapy. It is unknown whether this advantage would be lost if the patient had to be transferred for PTCA, and reperfusion was delayed. METHODS Patients with high-risk AMI (age >70 years, anterior MI, Killip class II/III, heart rate >100 beats/min or systolic BP <100 mm Hg) who were eligible for thrombolytic therapy were randomized to either transfer for primary PTCA or on-site thrombolysis. RESULTS One hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized before the study ended (71 to transfer for PTCA and 67 to thrombolysis). The time from arrival to treatment was delayed in the transfer group (155 vs. 51 min, p < 0.0001), largely due to the initiation of transfer (43 min) and transport time (26 min). Patients randomized to transfer had a reduced hospital stay (6.1 +/- 4.3 vs. 7.5 +/- 4.3 days, p = 0.015) and less ischemia (12.7% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.007). At 30 days, a 38% reduction in major adverse cardiac events was observed for the transfer group; however, because of the inability to recruit the necessary sample size, this did not achieve statistical significance (8.4% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.331). CONCLUSIONS Patients with high-risk AMI at hospitals without a catheterization laboratory may have an improved outcome when transferred for primary PTCA versus on-site thrombolysis; however, this will require further study. The marked delay in the transfer process suggests a role for triaging patients directly to specialized heart-attack centers.

Acute Coronary Care in the Elderly, Part II

Background— Age is an important determinant of outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, community practice reveals a disproportionately lower use of cardiovascular medications and invasive treatment even among elderly patients who would stand to benefit. Limited trial data are available to guide care of older adults, which results in uncertainty about benefits and risks, particularly with newer medications or invasive treatments and in the setting of advanced age and complex health status. Methods and Results— Part II of this American Heart Association scientific statement summarizes evidence on presentation and treatment of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction in relation to age (<65, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years). The purpose of this statement is to identify areas in which the evidence is sufficient to guide practice in the elderly and to highlight areas that warrant further study. Treatment-related benefits should rise in an elderly population, yet data to confirm these benefits are limited, and the heterogeneity of older populations increases treatment-associated risks. Elderly patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction more often have relative and absolute contraindications to reperfusion, so eligibility for reperfusion declines with age, and yet elderly patients are less likely to receive reperfusion even if eligible. Data support a benefit from reperfusion in elderly subgroups up to age 85 years. The selection of reperfusion strategy is determined more by availability, time from presentation, shock, and comorbidity than by age. Additional data are needed on selection and dosing of adjunctive therapies and on complications in the elderly. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to care in the oldest old is not feasible, and ethical issues will remain even in the presence of adequate evidence. Nevertheless, if the contributors to treatment benefits and risks are understood, guideline-recommended care may be applied in a patient-centered manner in the oldest subset of patients. Conclusions— Few trials have adequately described treatment effects in older patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. In the future, absolute and relative risks for efficacy and safety in age subgroups should be reported, and trials should make efforts to enroll the elderly in proportion to their prevalence among the treated population. Outcomes of particular relevance to the older adult, such as quality of life, physical function, and independence, should also be evaluated, and geriatric conditions unique to this age group, such as frailty and cognitive impairment, should be considered for their influence on care and outcomes. With these efforts, treatment risks can be minimized, and benefits can be placed within the health context of the elderly patient.