BackgroundApproximately 5% of patients with an acute coronary syndrome are discharged from the emergency room with an erroneous diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain. Highly accurate non-invasive stress imaging is valuable for assessment of low-risk chest pain patients to prevent these errors. Adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (AS-CMR) is an imaging modality with increasing application. The goal of this study was to evaluate the negative prognostic value of AS-CMR among low-risk acute chest pain patients.MethodsWe studied 103 patients, mean 56.7 ± 12.3 years of age, with chest pain and no electrocardiographic evidence of ischemia and negative cardiac biomarkers of necrosis, who were admitted to the Cardiac Decision Unit of our institution. All patients underwent AS-CMR. A negative AS-CMR was defined as absence of all the following: regional wall motion abnormalities at rest; perfusion defects during stress (adenosine) and rest; and myocardial scar on late gadolinium enhancement images. The patients were followed for a mean of 277 (range 161-462) days. The primary end point was defined as the combination of cardiac death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization for chest pain, obstructive coronary artery disease (>50% coronary stenosis on invasive angiography) and coronary revascularization.ResultsIn 14 patients (13.6%), AS-CMR was positive. The remaining 89 patients (86.4%), who had negative AS-CMR, were discharged. No patient with negative AS-CMR reached the primary end-point during follow-up. The negative predictive value of AS-CMR was 100%.ConclusionAS-CMR holds promise as a useful tool to rule out significant coronary artery disease in patients with low-risk chest pain. Patients with negative AS-CMR have an excellent short and mid-term prognosis.

Excluding obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) as the etiology of acute chest pain in patients without diagnostic electrocardiographic changes or elevated serum cardiac biomarkers is challenging. Stress testing is a valuable risk-stratifying technique reserved for the subset of these patients with low-risk chest pain who have an intermediate clinical probability of obstructive CAD. Given the risks of radiation inherent to nuclear and computed tomography imaging, both adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (AS-CMR) imaging and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) are attractive alternative stress modalities. An essential characteristic of stress modalities is their negative prognostic value; as one must exclude clinically-relevant CAD such that patients can be discharged safely. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate a favorable negative prognostic value for both AS-CMR and DSE in patients presenting with low-risk acute chest pain. This retrospective study included 255 patients with low-risk acute chest pain and no prior history of CAD presenting to the emergency department at our institution, with 89 patients evaluated by AS-CMR and 166 by DSE. Median follow-up was 292 days, and consisted of medical record review. The primary end-point was the composite of cardiac death, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, obstructive CAD on invasive coronary angiography (ICA) or recurrent chest pain requiring hospital admission. Test characteristics such as sensitivity and specificity could not be evaluated as patients were not routinely evaluated with ICA. All patients completed the stress protocol without adverse events during testing. 82/89 patients (92.1%) and 164/166 patients (98.8%) had negative AS-CMR and DSE studies, respectively. Both AS-CMR and DSE had excellent negative prognostic values for the primary endpoint, 100 and 99%, respectively. Both AS-CMR and DSE are effective stress modalities for excluding clinically significant coronary artery disease in patients presenting acute low-risk chest pain. Patients without findings to suggest ischemia have an excellent intermediate-term prognosis.

No abstract

The Hellenic Heart Failure Association has undertaken the initiative to develop a national network of heart failure clinics (HFCs) and cardio‐oncology clinics (COCs). We conducted two questionnaire surveys among these clinics within 17 months and another during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak to assess adjustments of the developing network to the pandemic. Out of 68 HFCs comprising the network, 52 participated in the first survey and 55 in the second survey. The median number of patients assessed per week is 10. Changes in engaged personnel were encountered between the two surveys, along with increasing use of advanced echocardiographic techniques (23.1% in 2018 vs. 34.5% in 2020). Drawbacks were encountered, concerning magnetic resonance imaging and ergospirometry use (being available in 14.6% and 29% of HFCs, respectively), exercise rehabilitation programmes (applied only in 5.5%), and telemedicine applications (used in 16.4%). There are 13 COCs in the country with nine of them in the capital region; the median number of patients being assessed per week is 10. Platforms for virtual consultations and video calls are used in 38.5%. Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak affected provision of HFC services dramatically as only 18.5% continued to function regularly, imposing hurdles that need to be addressed, at least temporarily, possibly by alternative methods of follow‐up such as remote consultation. The function of COCs, in contrast, seemed to be much less affected during the pandemic (77% of them continued to follow up their patients). This staged, survey‐based procedure may serve as a blueprint to help building national HFC/COC networks and provides the means to address changes during healthcare crises.

No abstract