1 / 29

Listening to the Data: Why There’s Room for Improvement in MI Care

Listening to the Data: Why There’s Room for Improvement in MI Care. Heartscape® Consultants Meeting. Charles V. Pollack, Jr, MA, MD, FACEP, FAAEM, FAHA Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine Pennsylvania Hospital Professor of Emergency Medicine

shadow
Télécharger la présentation

Listening to the Data: Why There’s Room for Improvement in MI Care

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Listening to the Data: Why There’s Room for Improvement in MI Care Heartscape® Consultants Meeting Charles V. Pollack, Jr, MA, MD, FACEP, FAAEM, FAHA Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine Pennsylvania Hospital Professor of Emergency Medicine University of PennsylvaniaSchool of Medicine Philadelphia, PA

  2. STEMI: Optimal Therapy, 12/12/07 • Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 Focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol and Circulation; at www.acc.org and www.americanheart.org. • Pollack CV, Antman EA, Hollander JE: 2007 Focused update to the ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Implications for emergency department practice. Ann Emerg Med 2008, in press.

  3. NSTE ACS: Optimal Therapy, 8/6/07 • Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al. 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:e1-e157, and Circulation 2007;116:e148-e304, and at www.acc.org and at www.americanheart.org. • Pollack CV, Braunwald E: 2007 Update to the ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Implications for emergency department practice. Ann Emerg Med 2008;51:591-606.

  4. STEMI vs NSTE ACS • STEMI • diagnosis is clinical + ECG; markers not necessary • there is risk stratification within STEMI, but in general, STEMI is high-risk • treatment focus is on opening the IRA as soon as possible • Necessary components: • clinical recognition • accurate ECG interpretation • rapid treatment response

  5. STEMI vs NSTE ACS • NSTEMI • diagnosis is clinical + markers; ECG Δs not necessary and often irrelevant • risk stratification driven by biomarkers: elevated troponin = elevated risk • treatment focus is on medical stabilization and early (24-48h) intervention • Necessary components: • clinical recognition • accurate ECG interpretation (exclude STEMI) • consistent treatment response

  6. STEMI vs NSTE ACS • Unstable angina • diagnosis is clinical; ECG Δs not necessary and markers are negative by definition • ST-segment depression confers somewhat higher risk and more likely to benefit from more aggressive therapy • treatment focus is on medical stabilization and further evaluation • Necessary components: • clinical recognition • consistent care and treatment

  7. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Commonality • clinical recognition • reliance on ECG (as a rule-in or as a rule-out) • timely evaluation and treatment • consistent care

  8. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Commonality • clinical recognition • reliance on ECG (as a rule-in or as a rule-out) • timely evaluation and treatment • consistent care

  9. We Must Risk Stratify Patients with Chest Pain Three levels of risk strat are pertinent to the ED: low, intermediate, or high risk that ischemic symptoms are a result of CAD low, intermediate, or high risk of short-term death or nonfatal MI from ACS dynamic, ongoing risk-oriented evaluation of low- or intermediate-risk patients for “conversion” to high-risk status that is linked to intensity of treatment Pollack CV. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:229

  10. Clinical Recognition of ACS • up to one-third of ACS patients present without chest pain • of these, 2/3 are NSTE ACS and 1/3 are STEMI • particularly prevalent in women, diabetics, and patients with a history of heart failure • “atypical is the new typical” as we see older and older patients, but atypical presentations are classically associated with delayed diagnosis and treatment Canto J et al, JAMA 2000; 283:3223

  11. Clinical Recognition of ACS Drives Tx Each comparison p < 0.001 Canto J et al, JAMA 2000; 283:3223

  12. Clinical Recognition of ACS • Risk Scores • TIMI • GRACE • PURSUIT • ACI-TIPI • Goldman • best used to supplement—not replace—clinical judgment • less useful in atypical presentations, but indeed validated in an ED population . . .

  13. 40.9 26.2 19.9 13.2 8.3 4.7 TIMI risk score for UA/NSTEMI UFH Group TIMI 11B (N= 1957) 50 40 30 D/MI/Urg Revasc 14d (%) 20 10 0 0/1 2 3 4 5 6/7 Risk Factors Risk Level LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH Antman EM et al. JAMA 2000; 284:835

  14. TIMI risk score for UA/NSTEMI 45 50 39.2 40 22.1 30 D/MI/Urg Revasc 30d (%) 19.5 20 10.1 7.1 10 0 0/1 2 3 4 5 6/7 Risk Factors Risk Level LOW INTERMEDIATE HIGH Pollack CV et al. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:13

  15. p<0.001 2 for trend 60 50 40 p=0.02 2 for trend 30 20 10 0 Total 0/1 2 3 4 5 6/7 population Validation and treatment interaction forenoxaparin (ESSENCE data) UFH Enoxaparin % Triple endpoint (14d) 19.8 16.6 Risk factors Antman EM at al, JAMA 2000;284:835

  16. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Commonality • clinical recognition • reliance on ECG (as a rule-in or as a rule-out) • timely evaluation and treatment • consistent care

  17. ECG • Carries diagnostic and prognostic value • Especially valuable if captured during pain • ST-segment depression or transient ST-segment elevation are primary ECG markers of UA/NSTEMI • up to 25% of patients with NSTEMI and +marker develop Q-wave MI; 75% have NSTEMI • only classifying differentiation between UA and NSTEMI is a positive biomarker • inverted T-waves suggestive of ischemia, particularly with good chest pain story

  18. ECG • Generally more useful in identifying STEMI than UA/NSTEMI • GLs suggest that serial ECGs increase both sensitivity and specificity • GLs withhold recommendation on utility of continuous ST-segment monitoring • GLs recommend mathematical models based on ECG findings only for identification of patients at low risk and for prognosis in those with ischemia

  19. ECG: Limitations • Only a point-in-time sample • Most common ECG in NSTE ACS is NSSTTΔs • In i*trACS, more than half of initial ECGs in patients with evolving MIs were nondiagnostic

  20. ECG: Limitations • Large portions of myocardium are missed or at best are indirectly seen • Posterior wall • RV • High lateral • Addressed with • Additional leads • Not often done . . . Not often done correctly . . . Not enough “coverage”

  21. ECG: Limitations • Difficulties in interpretation • BBB • LVH • Early repolarization • Pericarditis • Inexperienced reader • Addressed with • Computerized interpretations • Consultation • Training • Risk management

  22. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Commonality • clinical recognition • reliance on ECG (as a rule-in or as a rule-out) • timely evaluation and treatment • consistent care

  23. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Time, Time, Time • STEMI • D2B target 90 minutes • new data suggest that the likelihood of achieving TIMI-3 flow after PPCI is decreased by 21% (95% CI, 10-31%) with every 60min ischemic time* • likelihood of achieving optimal (TMPG 2/3) reperfusion after PPCI is decreased by 19% (4-31%) with every 60min ischemic time* • TMPG 2/3 associated with reduced 90day mortality • D2N target 30 minutes * Brener SJ et al, Eur Heart J 2008;29:1127

  24. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Time, Time, Time • NSTE ACS (high risk) • 2000 ACC/AHA GLs: inpatient evaluation recommended (I-C) • 2002 ACC/AHA GLs: diagnostic cath recommended within 48h (I-A) • 2007 ACC/AHA GLs: diagnostic cath recommended within 4-24h (I-A)

  25. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Time, Time, Time • Time to treatment is dependent on time to diagnosis, and accuracy of diagnosis • ECG within 10 minutes • accuracy not addressed • markers within 60 minutes • proper patients for assay must first be identified • Public reporting of times has increased pressure on providers (image, P4P, medicolegal risk) and led to unusual interpretations of efficiency of care • STEMI vs NSTEMI • PPCI vs lysis

  26. STEMI vs NSTE ACS: Commonality • clinical recognition • reliance on ECG (as a rule-in or as a rule-out) • timely evaluation and treatment • consistent care

  27. UMass STEMI %DTB < 90 minutes vs Mortality Courtesy of Greg Volturo, MD

  28. Hospital Link Between Overall Guidelines Adherence and Mortality: NSTE-ACS Every 10%  in guidelines adherence  10%  in mortality (OR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.84-0.97) Peterson ED et al, JAMA 2006;295:1863

  29. Conclusions • ACS evaluation is complicated by atypical presentations, concern over medicolegal risk, inadequate collaboration across disciplines, and public reporting/P4P issues • Atypical presentations are increasingly common • Electrocardiography, the traditional ED triage point for emergent vs urgent therapy, is limited by time, geography, and reading expertise • Patient care and outcomes may be significantly hampered by these issues

More Related