Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on in Hospital Adverse Outcomes after First Episode of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Objective: To determine the impact of diabetes on adverse outcomes amongst patients presenting for the first time with acute coronary syndrome. Study design: Cohort Study Methodology: A total of 340 patients were enrolled in this study. At presentation patients were divided in two equal age and gender matched groups with 170 patients in Group-A having diabetes and another 170 being non-diabetics in Group-B. Patients were followed up for period of index hospitalization and all adverse outcomes were noted in both groups as per operational definition. Results: Mean age in Group-A with diabetes was 54±12.7 years whereas in non diabetics it was56±13.12 years. In both groups there was male predominance with approximately 60% males and 40% females. In diabetic group, 38% patients had typical chest pain, 62% patients had dyspnea, 20% patients had cardiogenic shock while in non diabetic group, 20% patients had typical chest pain, 40% patients had dyspnea, 10% patients had cardiogenic shock. In diabetic group, 38% patients had heart failure, 10% patients died while in non diabetics 20% had heart failure and 5% patients died. Conclusion: This study concluded that in hospital adverse outcomes after first episode of acute coronary syndrome were more frequent in diabetic patients as compare to non diabetic patients. Keywords: Acute coronary syndrome, Adverse outcomes, First attack

539 Frequency related left bundle branch block as cause of chest pain: ‘painful LBBB syndrome’

Aims A 47-years-old man presented to our cardiology ambulatory due to sudden chest pains, mainly on exertion. His only relevant cardiovascular risk factor was a familiarity for coronaropathy. In 2013 he had undergone a coronary angiography which was negative for stenotic lesions. Since then he was treated with beta-blockers and Ivabradine with mild improvement of the pain. Methods and results While his previous Holter-ECG reported sinus rhythm [heart rate (HR) 60 b.p.m.] and no alterations of atrioventricular nor of interventricular conduction, his ECG during his examination in our ambulatory showed sinus rhythm (HR 80 b.p.m.), normal atrioventricular conduction but presence of complete left bundle branch block. We therefore performed an ergometric test. His baseline ECG (HR around 65 b.p.m.), at the start of the test, showed no left bundle branch block and the QRS complex was narrow. During the test, at the heart rate of around 85 b.p.m., the ECG showed a complete left bundle branch block. At the same time the patient complained of typical chest pain. The ergometric test was submaximal as it was stopped at the beginning of the third Bruce stage due to the patient’s chest pain. No ST segment alterations were found. During the recovery phase, we noted that the left bundle branch block disappeared when the heart rate was below 75 b.p.m. A new coronary angiography was performed and again it showed no stenotic lesion. We therefore concluded our diagnostic workup and diagnosed a frequency related ‘painful left bundle branch block syndrome’. Conclusions ‘Painful left bundle branch block syndrome’ is defined as the presence of typical chest pain together with left bundle branch block, in the absence of signs of myocardial ischaemia. The pain improves once the conduction defect disappears. The mechanism of the syndrome is not known although it seems to be related to dyssynchrony of the myocardium. It may often be frequency related.

Same day CT angiography in a nurse-led Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic

Funding Acknowledgements None Background Rapid Access Chest Pain clinics (RACPCs) were established in the UK in 2000 following the publication of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. Patients underwent an exercise test (ETT) in the clinic as part of a ‘one-stop’ protocol with follow-up only if further investigation was required. In 2010, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produced guidelines for the assessment and diagnosis of chest pain of recent onset (CG95), replacing the recommendation for ETT with non-invasive functional testing for patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease (CAD), necessitating multiple appointments to evaluate the patient’s symptoms. The guidelines were updated in 2016, with a new recommendation that patients with atypical or typical chest pain should undergo CT coronary angiography (CTCA) as the first diagnostic test. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and potential benefit of performing same -day CTCA in the RACPC. Method From November 2016 all patients with atypical or typical chest pain attending the RACPC at this tertiary cardiac centre were referred for CTCA unless alternative investigation was clinically indicated. From February 2018, same day CTCA was offered to some patients. Up to two scans could be performed in each clinic, which was increased to up to three in June 2018. Results A total of 985 patients were seen in the nurse-led clinic between 12/02/2018 and 30/11/2019. 473 patients were referred for CTCA (48.0%) and 314 scans were carried out in the clinic (66.4%). Of those scans carried out in clinic, 128 patients had a CTCA which showed no evidence of CAD (40.8%) and 34.4% of scans showed non-obstructive CAD. In 18.2% of patients, the CTCA showed significant CAD and in 21 patients (6.7%) the scan was inconclusive. Patient with inconclusive scans underwent further testing which was negative in all cases. The outcome for patients with significant CAD (57 patients) is shown in the table. Conclusion CTCA on the same day as the RACPC appointment is feasible and facilitates rapid further investigation and treatment of patients with potentially significant CAD. It also enables patients with non-significant or no CAD to be reassured that their symptoms are unlikely to be cardiac which will reduce anxiety and allow timely investigation of other causes of the chest pain. Nurses need training in the risks of radiation in order to be able to request the scans and enable the clinic to be nurse-led.

Tyhroid Storm-Induced Worsening Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Case Report

Background: As a true endocrine emergency, thyroid storm is rarely associated with acute myocardial infarction. However Graves’ disease is the most common underlying cause of thyroid storm. Clinical Case: A 47-year women experienced typical chest pain since 30 minutes before visited emergency room. The patient had type two diabetes as a cardiovascular risk factor and regularly took metformin thrice daily. The electrocardiogram showed non-ST segment elevation in leads I, V4-V6. Coronary arteriography showed stenosis in the three and left main vessels (70% stenosis of right coronary, 80% stenosis of left circumflex, 90% stenosis of left anterior descendent, and 90% stenosis of mid distal, in left main stem) then the patient was planned to do bypass surgery. At day 6 of hospitalization, the typical chest pain was worsening, epigastric pain became more painful, had 5 times diarrhea per day, high grade fever (>38.5oC), severe nausea and vomiting, then generalized tonic clonic seizure and respiratory failure was occurred. The patient was intubated in intensive care unit. Through a detail physical examination, a diffuse palpable thyroid enlargement and class I ophthalmopathy were found. Laboratory findings of free T4 was 2.23 ng/dL and Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) was 0.003 µIU/mL. The patient was assessed as thyroid storm then immediately, treated with three times of 100 mg hydrocortisone, two times of 20 mg of propranolol, and three times of 400 mg propylthiourasil. The patient’s clinical appearance was gradually recovered. After 3 days of treatment, she was extubated from ventilator. Two weeks later, no complaint of chest pain or epigastric pain in observation. Conclusion: Our case highlight the possibility that hyperthyroidism may be involved in the development of acute myocardial infarction.

How to decide which COVID-19 patient with myocardial infarction to send to the Cath Lab? - A case series of COVID-19 patients with myocardial infarction (Preprint)

BACKGROUND The Coronavirus pandemic has hit the world with its vast contagiousness, high morbidity, and mortality. Apart from the direct damage to the lung tissue, the corona virus infection is able to predispose patients to thrombotic disease, thus causing cerebral or coronary incidents. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to find a clinical or laboratory parameter, that would help in distinguishing between COVID-19 patients with myocardial infarction (MI), who have an infarct-related artery (IRA) and therefore, require immediate revascularization, and those, who have no IRA. METHODS This was a single-center, observational study of 10 consecutive patients with COVID-19, who were admitted with confirmed MI. RESULTS In our study group the mean age was 67.5 ± 8.3 years, half of the patients were female; all of them had arterial hypertension; 8 patients (80%) had dyslipidemy; 4 (40%) had diabetes. 30% of the patients with MI did not have an IRA, and did not require pPCI. Patients with MI and IRA had significantly higher hsTrI values (48.9 ± 43.2 vs 0.6 ± 0.7, p=0.007) and exclusively typical chest pain 100% vs 0%, p=0.007), compared to patients with MI without an IRA. The ECG changes had only marginal statistical significance. Our results suggest that using a higher cut-off value for hsTrI (>7.5 times upper reference range) increases the specificity and positive predictive value for diagnosing a MI with the presence of IRA and need for pPCI, to 100% CONCLUSIONS In our analysis we confirm that a higher cut-off value for hsTrI helps distinguish between COVID patients with MI, who have IRA and therefore, require immediate revascularization, compared to those, who have no IRA.

How to decide which COVID-19 patient with myocardial infarction to send to the Cath Lab? - A case series of COVID-19 patients with myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTIONThe Coronavirus pandemic has hit the world with its vast contagiousness, high morbidity, and mortality. Apart from the direct damage to the lung tissue, the corona virus infection is able to predispose patients to thrombotic disease, thus causing cerebral or coronary incidents.AIMSThe aim of this study was to find a clinical or laboratory parameter, that would help in distinguishing between COVID-19 patients with myocardial infarction (MI), who have an infarct-related artery (IRA) and therefore, require immediate revascularization, and those, who have no IRA.METHODSThis was a single-center, observational study of 10 consecutive patients with COVID-19, who were admitted with confirmed MI.RESULTSIn our study group the mean age was 67.5 ± 8.3 years, half of the patients were female; all of them had arterial hypertension; 8 patients (80%) had dyslipidemy; 4 (40%) had diabetes. 30% of the patients with MI did not have an IRA, and did not require pPCI. Patients with MI and IRA had significantly higher hsTrI values (48.9 ± 43.2 vs 0.6 ± 0.7, p=0.007) and exclusively typical chest pain 100% vs 0%, p=0.007), compared to patients with MI without an IRA. The ECG changes had only marginal statistical significance. Our results suggest that using a higher cut-off value for hsTrI (>7.5 times upper reference range) increases the specificity and positive predictive value for diagnosing a MI with the presence of IRA and need for pPCI, to 100%CONCLUSIONIn our analysis we confirm that a higher cut-off value for hsTrI helps distinguish between COVID patients with MI, who have IRA and therefore, require immediate revascularization, compared to those, who have no IRA.

Clinical, Angiographic Profile and Short-term Prognosis in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction- A Cross-sectional Study

Introduction: Acute Myocardial Infarction (MI) is one of the most common causes of death and disability throughout the world. The most common of all Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) in Indian patients is acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Although acute MI more commonly occurs in patients older than 45 years of age, young men and women can also have MI. Aim: To study the risk factors, clinical presentation, angiographic profile and short-term prognosis in patients with STEMI with age <45 years. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in the Department of Cardiology, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India. A total of 198 patients of age ≤45 years with acute STEMI, of both genders diagnosed based on symptoms, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Echocardiogram (Echo) and biomarkers were enrolled from June 2019 to November 2020. Categorical variables were tabulated in frequency with percentage distribution and continuous variables were summarised in mean±SD (Standard Deviation). Results: This study included 198 patients, aged ≤45 years, with STEMI. STEMI was more common in males. The mean age was 38.28 and 42.15 years for males and females, respectively. Smoking (63.5%) was the most common risk factor, followed by dyslipidemia (28.5%). Most of the patients (86.5%) presented with typical chest pain. Killip’s Class I was most common (92.5%) at the time of admission. Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction (AWMI) was the presentation in the majority (61%). Most patients (47%) had Single Vessel Disease (SVD). One third of the patients had re-canalysed vessels. Type A lesion was commonly seen (61%) and 60% patients underwent coronary angioplasty. Conclusion: In young STEMI patients males were commoner and smoking and dyslipidemia were found to be the common risk factors, smoking being twice more common than dyslipidemia. Typical chest pain of Killip Class I and AWMI were seen in majority. Half of the patients had SVD and one third was found to be re- canalysed. Type A was the commonest lesion and two thirds of the study population could undergo coronary angioplasty.

How relevant is the ISCHEMIA trial to a rapid access chest pain clinic cohort of patients?

Background The ISCHEMIA trial demonstrated that optimal medical therapy (OMT) is not inferior to an early interventional approach for stable angina. This could significantly impact on clinical practice. This study aimed to check the relevance of the ISCHEMIA trial in a real-world population of patients referred to a tertiary centre with recent onset chest pain (CP). Methods In this registry study, electronic notes of all patients assessed in a Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic (RACPC) within a 12-month period (2018–19) were reviewed. Patients were selected if they met key ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria. Results 2416 patients were assessed, 378 (15.6%) presented with typical anginal CP, 1357 (56.2%) had atypical CP and 681 (28.2%) had non anginal CP. Of the typical CP group, 158 patients were excluded (91 known CAD, 62 ACS, 2 eGFR &lt;30mL/min, 3 severe LVSD). This resulted in 220 patients, representing 58.2% of the typical chest pain population and 9.1% of all patients seen in RACPC. These patients had a median age of 60 years, 96 (44%) female, 119 (54.1%) had high cholesterol, 44 (20%) had diabetes, 115 (52.3%) had hypertension, 104 (47.3%) had a family history of ischaemic heart disease, and 32 (14.5%) were current smokers. Of these 220 patients, 48 (21.8%) had a CT coronary angiogram (CTCA) requested as their first line investigation (42 completed) with 1 (2.4%) patients result suggestive of significant left main stem (LMS) disease. 15 (6.8%) patients had stress echocardiography requested as their first line investigation (13 completed), 4 (31%) were positive for inducible ischaemia. 3 (1.4%) patients had stress CMR requested as their first line investigation (2 completed), both were negative. 143 (65%) patients had an invasive coronary angiogram (ICA) requested as their first line investigation (112 completed). 8 patients had severe LMS disease and were referred for surgical opinion. A further 11 patients were referred for surgical opinion due to multivessel disease or aberrant coronary anatomy. In total 24 (21.4%) patients were treated with PCI following ICA as their first line investigation. All patients were started on medical therapy for presumed CAD with up-titration while awaiting investigations. The median wait time for a CTCA was 55 days compared to 165.5 days for ICA. Two patients (0.9%) from the cohort of 220 patients died during the follow up period, compared to 2.5% of patients admitted from RACPC with an ACS diagnosis. Conclusion Patients present with undifferentiated chest pain, consequently the outcomes of the ISCHEMIA trial must be considered cautiously. Within our cohort of 2416 patients, only 9% of patients met key inclusion criteria of the trial. Ultimately, only 19.5% patients with typical chest pain were revascularised, unlike 80% of patients in the invasive arm of ISCHEMIA. It is unclear how the results of the ISCHEMIA trial will impact on UK practice, but it is clear that OMT plays a central role. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

PCI is a long-lasting solution for abolishing angina. Or maybe not?

We describe a case of a 62-year-old man with no previous history of cardiovascular diseases presenting with typical chest pain. The patient was referred for coronary angiography, which revealed the presence of single-vessel coronary artery disease. After intracoronary stent implantation, the patient experienced recurrent episodes of angina followed by further revascularizations that did not clear up his symptoms.