No abstract

Background The CADILLAC risk score was developed to identify patients at low risk for adverse cardiovascular events following ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods We performed a single center retrospective review of STEMI hospitalizations treated with PPCI from 2014 to 2018. Patients were stratified using the CADILLAC risk score into low risk, intermediate risk and high risk groups. Patients presenting with cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was adverse clinical events during initial hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were adverse clinical events at 30 days and 1 year following index hospitalization. Results The study included 341 patients. Compared to patients with a low CADILLAC score, adverse clinical events were similar in the intermediate risk group during hospitalization (OR 1.23, CI 0.37–4.05, p 0.733) and at 30 days (OR 2.27, CI 0.93–5.56, p 0.0733) while adverse clinical events were significantly elevated in the high risk group during hospitalization (OR 4.75, CI 1.91–11.84, p 0.0008) and at 30 days (OR 8.73, CI 4.02–18.96, p < 0.0001). At 1 year follow-up, compared to the low risk CADILLAC group (9.4% adverse clinical event rate), cumulative adverse clinical events were significantly higher in the intermediate risk group (22.9% event rate, OR 2.86, CI 1.39–5.89, p 0.0044) and in the elevated risk group (58.6% event rate, OR 13.67, CI 6.81–27.43, p < 0.0001). The mortality rate was 0% for patients defined at low risk by CADILLAC score during hospitalization, as well up to 1 year follow up. On receiver operating curve analysis, discrimination of in-hospital adverse clinical events was fair using CADILLAC (C = 0.66, odds ratio 1.18; 95% CI 1.04–1.33; p = 0.0064) with somewhat better discrimination at 30-day follow-up (C = 0.719) and 1-year follow-up (C = 0.715). Conclusion Patients defined as low risk by the CADILLAC score following a STEMI were associated with lower mortality and adverse clinical event rates during hospitalization and up to 1 year following STEMI when compared to those with an intermediate or high CADILLAC score.

Background Exercise stress electrocardiography (ExECG) is recommended as a first-line tool to assess ischemia, but standard ST-analysis has limited diagnostic accuracy. ST elevation in lead aVR has been associated with left main and LAD disease in the population undergoing coronary angiography but has not been studied in the general population undergoing stress testing for the initial evaluation of CAD without coronary angiography. We sought to determine the predictive value of lead aVR elevation for ischemia, early revascularization, and subsequent cardiac events in consecutive patients undergoing ExECG. Methods and results The study cohort included 641 subjects referred for ExECG who were dichotomized by presence or absence of aVR elevation ≥1mm and compared for prevalence and predictors of ischemia and a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and late revascularization. The cohort had a median age of 57 and 57% were male. The prevalence of aVR elevation was 11.5%. The prevalence of significant ischemia on patients who received imaging was significantly higher with aVR elevation (14.3% vs 2.3%, p<0.001). Early revascularization occurred in 10.9% with vs 0.2% without aVR elevation, p<0.001. No subjects without aVR elevation or ST-depression underwent early revascularization. However, cardiac event rates were similar over a median 4.0 years of follow-up with and without aVR elevation (2.8% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.80). aVR elevation did not predict long-term cardiac events by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (p = 0.94) or Cox proportional hazards modeling (p = 0.35). Conclusions aVR elevation during ExECG predicts ischemia on imaging and early revascularization but not long-term outcomes and could serve as a useful adjunct to standard ST-analysis and potentially reduce the need for concurrent imaging.

No abstract

Key Points Regimented use of radial artery angiography prior to ST‐segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) intervention may improve complication rates and can be associated with improved procedural success, procedural time, and reduction in access‐site bleeding. Routine radial artery angiography may improve procedural quality without increase in procedural time or contrast use. Regardless of whether universal or selective radial angiography is best practice, angiography is an important tool to use for efficient radial access.