Document Detail

Modern risk stratification in coronary heart disease.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22514570     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The prevalence and impact of cardiovascular diseases in the world are growing. There are 2 million deaths due to cardiovascular disease each year in the European Union; the main cause of death being the coronary heart disease responsible for 16% of deaths in men and 15% in women. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Romania is estimated at 7 million people, of which 2.8 million have ischemic heart disease. In this epidemiological context, risk stratification is required for individualization of therapeutic strategies for each patient. The continuing evolution of the diagnosis and treatment techniques combines personalized medicine with the trend of therapeutic management leveling, based on guidelines and consensus, which are in constant update. The guidelines used in clinical practice have involved risk stratification and identification of patient groups in whom the risk-benefit ratio of using new diagnostic and therapeutic techniques has a positive value. Presence of several risk factors may indicate a more important total risk than the presence / significant increase from normal values of a single risk factor. Modern trends in risk stratification of patients with coronary heart disease are polarized between the use of simple data versus complex scores, traditional data versus new risk factors, generally valid scores versus personalized scores, depending on patient characteristics, type of coronary artery disease, with impact on the suggested therapy. All known information and techniques can be integrated in a complex system of risk assessment. The current trend in risk assessment is to identify coronary artery disease in early forms, before clinical manifestation, and to guide therapy, particularly in patients with intermediate risk, which can be classified in another class of risk based on new obtained information.
Authors:
C Ginghina; I Bejan; C D Ceck
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2011-11-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of medicine and life     Volume:  4     ISSN:  1844-3117     ISO Abbreviation:  J Med Life     Publication Date:  2011 Nov 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-04-19     Completed Date:  2012-08-10     Revised Date:  2013-06-26    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101477617     Medline TA:  J Med Life     Country:  Romania    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  377-86     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. carmenginghina2010@gmail.com
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Acute Coronary Syndrome / diagnosis,  epidemiology
Cardiovascular Diseases / diagnosis*,  epidemiology*
Coronary Artery Disease / diagnosis,  epidemiology
Female
Humans
Male
Myocardial Infarction / diagnosis,  epidemiology
Risk Assessment
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Life
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Med Life
Journal ID (publisher-id): JMedLife
ISSN: 1844-122X
ISSN: 1844-3117
Publisher: Carol Davila University Press, Romania
Article Information
Download PDF
©Carol Davila University Press
open-access:
Received Day: 29 Month: 7 Year: 2011
Accepted Day: 10 Month: 10 Year: 2011
Print publication date: Day: 14 Month: 11 Year: 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 24 Month: 11 Year: 2011
Volume: 4 Issue: 4
First Page: 377 Last Page: 386
ID: 3227156
PubMed Id: 22514570
Publisher Id: JMedLife-04-377

Modern risk stratification in coronary heart disease
C. Ginghina*
I. Bejan**
C.D. Ceck**
*"Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
**Cardiology Department, “Prof. Dr. C.C. Iliescu” Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Bucharest, Romania
Correspondence: Correspondence to:Ginghina Carmen, MD PhD “Prof. Dr. C.C. Iliescu” Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Bucharest, 258 Fundeni Street, Bucharest, Romania Phone: +40 21 318 0700, E-mail: carmenginghina2010@gmail.com

General Information

There are many classifications of known cardiovascular risk factors: major (showing a significant correlation with the risk of cardiovascular disease), associated (show a less significant correlation with cardiovascular risk); modifiable (can be controlled through diet / treatment) or not modifiable (i.e.: age, sex).[1] Classic risk factors are known: the INTERHEART study, which included the population in 52 countries, has identified nine risk factors responsible for over 90% of the myocardial infarction risk: smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, diet, physical activity, alcohol consumption, psychosocial factors. [2]

A recent study [3] has proposed to demonstrate the prognostic impact of physical examination in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The result was that the integration of information obtained from physical examination in Killip classification is an important predictor of death from any cause in patients with acute coronary syndromes, of significant importance being age, Killip class, heart rate, systolic blood pressure and ST segment depression.

An example is the HNR (Heinz Nixdorf Recall) Study, which demonstrated the benefit of identifying subclinical atherosclerosis by using coronary calcium score, assessed by noninvasive CT, consisting of a high percentage of reclassification in the intermediate risk patient group and a more precise estimate of risk. Patients with intermediate risk (based on traditional risk factors according to Framingham score) were reclassified according to calcium score results: <100 in the low-risk class and > 400 in the high-risk class. [4]


Risk Assessment Systems

A risk assessment system with a clinical utility must meet several criteria. It must use appropriate statistical methods, it must be performant (with internal and external validity), and it must include appropriate risk factors: with important discriminatory power, with prevalence in the target-population, and must be easy to use. [5]

Risk scores use proportional semiparametric (Cox) and parametric (Weibull) statistical risk models, complex methods such as cluster analysis and tree-structured analysis, or neural networks. [5] Risk scores’ performance is determined by the discrimination power (statistical parameters: AUROC and C Harrell test), calibration and reclassification (net reclassification index NRI).

Theoretical performance of a risk score is important, but in order to become a useful clinical tool must be accessible: simple, must contain available parameters and identify patients who might benefit from a specific treatment. [6] A comparative study on the prognostic value of risk scales in acute coronary syndromes demonstrated the superiority of GRACE and PURSUIT scores, which are complex, but are difficult to apply at the bedside, over the TIMI score, which is simpler, but more frequently used in clinical practice. [7]

The first step recommended in determining the patient’s risk is the calculation of the global cardiovascular risk, based on simple information, with the assessment of “classical” risk factors: age, sex, heredity, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, alcohol, psychosocial factors (i.e. Framingham, SCORE) and a careful clinical examination. The latter has an important prognostic value and constitutes the basis of several risk scores with wide application, such as the Killip classification in myocardial infarction. [8]

Following initial assessment, patients are classified into three risk categories: low, intermediate or high, to guide therapeutic management. Thus, a patient classified as having a high risk will be subject to invasive investigations, without using additional methods to quantify risk. Instead, for a patient with intermediate risk, therapeutic decision can be influenced by the use of unconventional markers and modern, complex techniques, if they are able to reclassify the patient in a different class of risk: low or high. [9] New risk factors for atherosclerosis are described as: markers of inflammation, metabolic risk factors, thrombogenic factors, markers of subclinical atherosclerosis.

Risk assessment is a dynamic process.

Coronary Heart Disease Risk Assessment

European Society of Cardiology suggests an algorithm for the evaluation of patients with acute coronary syndrome probability. The pain presence raises suspicion of acute coronary syndrome. The ECG may show ST segment elevation, normal pattern or atypical abnormalities. Depending on the biochemical markers (troponin) risk stratification can be made and therapeutic management can be guided. Afterwards, risk assessment will be made for secondary prevention.

Stable angina

Diagnosis of stable angina is primarily clinical and the leading role is the patient’s history. The most widely used classification is the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Classification, describing four classes of risk depending on clinical features and circumstances of occurrence. [10]

There are other classification systems: Duke Activity Specific Index or Seattle Angina Questionnaire, which can provide additional prognostic information [11], but in daily clinical practice they are less used.

The European Society of Cardiology [12] proposed a classification into three categories of annual cardiovascular mortality risk: low risk (<1%), intermediate risk (1-2%), elevated (>2%). Risk stratification requires integration of clinical parameters, stress test results, ventricular function and coronary angiography diagnosis. Individual prognosis of patients with stable angina is variable and the therapeutic management is different depending on the risk degree. Initial clinical evaluation (history, physical examination), rest electrocardiogram and laboratory tests can reveal unstable angina, in which case, the therapeutic management is specific. If the initial evaluation is suggestive of stable angina without signs of severity, the next step is the assessment of ischemia by using stress tests (stress ECG, echocardiography, scintigraphy), but, if there are characters of gravity: ECG changes, myocardial infarction, signs of heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, the cardiac performance is assessed by using the cardiac ultrasound or the MRI. Data integration allows patients classification in risk classes and modulation of therapeutic conduct: medical treatement with assessment of the therapeutic efficiency or coronary angiography, to determine the optimal revascularization formula.

The most important prognostic and survival factors in stable angina are left ventricular function, distribution and severity of coronary stenosis. [13]

Two forms of atypical angina are: Coronary X Syndrome and the vasospastic angina. Coronary X syndrome is defined by typical effort angina, positive stress tests and permeable epicardial coronary arteries [14] and was classified as a form of primary microvascular stable angina, with a good prognosis.[15] In vasospastic angina, the mortality risk is determined by the presence and severity of coronary artery stenosis [16] and the vascular hyperreactivity.

Acute coronary syndromes without ST segment elevation

Patients with acute coronary syndromes are a heterogenous group, with different risk of death or major cardiac events, and the initial assessment has an important role in the election of investigation and therapeutic decision.

The first classification in a group of risk in patients with unstable angina is made through history, depending on the character and frequency of anginal pain. Risk stratification in these patients can be performed by Braunwald classification of unstable angina in three risk classes.[17] (according to Table 3)

Clinical evaluation, ECG and biological makers allow the initial assignment of patients in one of the risk groups: high, intermediate or low. [18] (according to Table 4)

TIMI Score uses data on age, frequency of anginal episodes, risk factors and history of coronary artery stenosis, drug therapy (aspirin) and values of cardiac biomarkers. It is easy to calculate, each of the seven items of the questionnaire receiving 0 or 1 point, with a maximum score 7, and can be applied even in non-specialized areas.

It has a superior prognostic value compared to solely using ECG and troponin [20], even if it has a less accurate predictive value of cardiovascular events.[18] TIMI score has been validated in unselected cases of suspected acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction with or without ST segment elevation, is used in analyzing tratement efficacy and identifying patients with different response to treatment.

GRACE risk score is based on the analysis of an international registry that included an unselected group of patients with acute coronary syndromes and evaluates clinical data, ECG and biological information: such as age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, Killip class, the ECG changes, cardiac biomarkers, as well as two variables not previously identified: baseline creatinine level and cardiac arrest. This score has a significant discriminative power in assessing the risk of intra-hospital mortality, hospital discharge and at 6 months; patients are classified into three risk groups: low, intermediate and high. [21,22]

It is difficult for bedside use, but there are applications that facilitate automatic online calculating. Howerver, this is the optimum risk stratification score for daily practice, at admission and discharge. [18,23]

FRISC score is the only score that has a high capacity to identify patients who have a long-term benefit from an early invasive treatment strategy. [18,24]

PURSUIT score allows risk stratification in patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation. [25]

Each investigation contributes to determining the patient’s degree of risk. Thus, biological analysis provides important information by evaluating traditional biomarkers, as well as novel markers. For risk stratification, the following markers can be used: of myocardial necrosis, inflammation, hemodynamic stress and neurohormonal activation, renal impairment, vascular injury and accelerated atherosclerosis (Table 7).

The most important marker for the diagnosis and early risk stratification is troponin, which allows the differentiation between unstable angina and myocardial infarction, without ST segment elevation; with an important prognostic value (high levels are correlated with a poor prognosis). [26] Dynamic evaluation of creatine-kinase and creatine-kinase MB has a high prognostic value, so brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are recommended for additional grading. Multiple studies have proven that BNP is an important prognostic biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndromes. C-reactive protein allows risk stratification, especially in patients grouped on the basis of traditional risk factors in the intermediate risk class [27], as an independent maker or in combination with troponin T value [28], but there are studies (RISCA), showing that it does not provide additional long-term prognostic information. [29]

It should be noted that the use of biological markers should be performed and interpreted in a clinical context. For example, homocysteine evaluation is not recommended in all patients to identify risk, but has additional value for patients with intermediate risk. [28]

We are now trying to identify the prognostic value and the limits of individual markers and association of different investigations to allow data integration into risk scores (similar to clinical scores), “multi-marker strategy” to achieve a better risk grading [18], mentioning that there are also limits to be known (the synergistic effect of markers).

The modern concept of risk stratification is a “dynamic risk model”, [29] representing the parallel evolution of risk markers with the disease, their dynamic interpretation. This is why the reassessment of risk after the first day and at discharge is of great importance.

Acute coronary syndromes with ST segment elevation
Risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes with ST segment elevation - pre-hospital

Myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation has a high mortality rate, especially in the first 2 hours after onset, before patients reach hospital, and the reasons are: the incidence of malignant arrhythmias, ignoring or misinterpreting different types of haemodynamic instability, lack of early coronary reperfusion procedures [30], so that the quick, correct diagnosis and risk assessment of these patients pre-hospital is essential

Risk assessment in pre-hospital occurs mainly based on clinical, electrocardiographic and paraclinical data. The following clinical characteristics suggest an increased vital risk: age over 70 years, signs of tissue hypoperfusion, systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg, tachycardia > 110 bpm or bradycardia <60 bpm, psychomotor agitation, pulmonary rales or protodiastolic gallop. [30]

The parameters mentioned above allow the risk grading in Killip class, a simple classification and widely used in clinical practice. It also allows the identification of hemodynamic profile: normodinamic, hiperdinamic syndrome, hypotension, bradycardia, hypovolemia, cardiac pump failure, RV myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock. [30]

The ECG provides data for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes with ST segment elevation electrocardiogram, and can often be done pre-hospital, allowing Topol grading.

Paraclinical risk criteria are the arterial oxygen saturation reduction < 90% [2], a parameter easily obtained by the use of pulse oximetry, hyperglycemia > 120 mg / dl (correlated to 3 fold increased risk of death)[31], increased levels of troponin in the first 6 hours after symptoms onset. [32]

An important aspect is the early initiation of therapy in patients with myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation in pre-hospital with antiplatelets, anticoagulants and even fibrinolytic medication. In this case risk assessment is essential to identify patients with bleeding and increased bleeding risk, represented by: bleeding disorders, history of ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding, anemia without a known cause, severe hypertension, history of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (including transient), signs of senile dementia, recent head trauma, recent surgery (last three weeks), body weight below 65 kg. [33,34]

Risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes with ST segment elevation - in hospital

Initial assessment at hospital admission of patients with acute coronary syndromes with ST segment elevation should use two risk scales: clinical (Killip) and ECG (Topol). Killip Classification (1967) is still useful in clinical practice even if the impact on mortality has decreased due to enlargement of the therapeutic arsenal. [35]

The ECG allows rapid risk evaluation of patients with myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation, including them into one of the five Topol classes, the most reserved prognosis being for class Topol I. [36]

Location of ECG changes, ST segment elevation amplitude and QRS duration are electrocardiographic features with prognostic value, correlated with the risk of adverse events.[37] ST segment elevation in aVR derivation has a controversial prognostic value, but a value >1.5 mm associated with anterior myocardial infarction and a value >1 mm associated with inferior myocardial infarction, in patients without intraventricular conduction disturbances, is associated with increased mortality at 30 days.[38] Markers with predictive value of myocardial revascularization success are described: terminal QRS distorsion (grade 3 ischemia) on the initial ECG is an independent predictor marker for coronary reperfusion absence after primary angioplasty.[39]

Mortality risk in patients with AMI can be assessed according to clinical and hemodynamic parameter values: cardiac index and pulmonary capillary pressure (obtained by right cardiac catheterization), according to Forrester classification, rarely used today. Normal hemodynamic profile includes patients with normal cardiac output (> 2.2 l/m/m2) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure < 18 mmHg, increased pressure in the pulmonary capillary under a normal cardiac output corresponds to patients with acute pulmonary edema, patients with hypovolemic status presents low cardiac output and pulmonary capillary pressure at low, while patients in cardiogenic shock present a low cardiac output in the presence of increased pressure in the pulmonary capillary.[40]

Summing up the information provided by clinical and ECG data, the most important independent prognostic markers are older age, higher Killip class, and presence of tachycardia, hypotension and anterior location of the myocardial infarction.[41] Independent predictive value also have: history of a myocardial infarction, time to treatment, height, weight, diabetes and smoking.[42] Initial echocardiographic evaluation brings information on the location and extent of the myocardial infarction; LV systolic function was correlated with long-term prognosis in these patients.[43]

Risk assessment in acute coronary sindrom with ST segment elevation is a continuous process, so that each diagnostic step brings additional information and allows a dynamic stratification of the patients’ risk. Coronary angiography allows assessing the coronary anatomy, coronary lesions, the best therapeutic option, the opportunity and myocardial revascularization modality.

Currently, there are several risk stratification scores based on angiographic results (Table13and14), but information on the comparative value of such scales of risk is limited, each using populations with different characteristics, the results being reported at different, not-superimposable distances of time.[44]

In case of interventional revascularization, it is important to grade the coronary flow (TIMI) and the myocardial blush (MBG- a semiquantitatively parameter dependent on the tissular phase of the myocardial perfusion), which are important prognostic factors.

After the primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction, the no-reflow phenomenon can be seen in 10 to 40% of cases [41], characterized by the presence of coronary TIMI flow <3 or TIMI 3 but 0-1 myocardial blush, negative prognostic marker, correlated with a prolonged duration of myocardial ischemia, severe arrhythmias, hemodynamic deterioration, increased risk of mechanical complications.

After reperfusion therapy, it is necessary to identify patients at high risk for reinfarction or death. In this respect it is important to assess infarct size and LV function at rest in the first 24-48 hours (if not performed previously to angioplasty). It is necessary to assess myocardial viability: using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (with thallium-201 or technetium-99m), stress echocardiography (usually dobutamine), MRI or PET, as well as evaluating the risk of arrhythmia and to initiate sudden death prevention. Patients without symptomatic arrhythmias and with EF > 60% are at low risk, so you do not need further investigation. High risk patients have EF < 40%, heart failure symptoms, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia induced at electrophysiological study. Other risk factors are: T wave alternation, heart rate variability, QT dispersion, baro-reflex sensitivity, signal-gated ECG. [41]

Risk evaluation in patients with acute coronary syndromes is dynamic, with reassessment after each diagnostic or therapeutic step, with impact on the investigation plan, therapeutic management, with identification of immediate and long-term prognosis.

Modern risk stratification in coronary artery disease involves a complex approach (incorporating data and taking into account traditional risk factors unconventional) and personalized.


References
1. Ginghina C.. Cardiovascular risk factorsSmall Textbook of CardiologyYear: 2010BucharestEd. Academiei Romane157166
2. Yusuf S.,Hawken S.,Ôunpuu S.,Dans T.. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART Study): case-control study. LancetYear: 200436493795215364185
3. Khot UN,Jia G,Moliterno DJ,Lincoff AM. Prognostic importance of physical examination for heart failure in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: the enduring value of Killip classification.JAMAYear: 2003290162174218114570953
4. Erbel R.,Möhlenkamp S.,Moebus S.,Schmermund A.. Coronary Risk Stratification, Discrimination, and Reclassification Improvement Based on Quantification of Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis: The Heinz Nixdorf Recall StudyJACC Year: 2010561397140620946997
5. Cooney MT,Dudina AL,Graham IM. Value and Limitations of Existing Scores for the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk: A Review for Clinicians. JACCYear: 2009541209122719778661
6. Lagerqvist B,Diderholm E,Lindahl B,Husted S. FRISC score for selection of patients for an early invasive treatment strategy in unstable coronary artery disease. HeartYear: 20059181047105216020594
7. Yan AT,Yan RT,Tan M,Casanova A. Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better. Eur Heart JYear: 20072891072107817437970
8. Khot UN,Jia G,Moliterno DJ,Lincoff AM. Prognostic Importance of Physical Examination for Heart Failure in Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes. The Enduring Value of Killip Classification.JAMA Year: 2003290162174218114570953
9. Greenland P,Alpert JS,Beller GA,Benjamin EJ. 2010 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. CirculationYear: 2010122252748276421098427
10. Goldman L,Goldman L,Goldman L,Goldman L. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. CirculationYear: 198164122712347296795
11. Spertus JA,Jones P,McDonell M,Fan V. Health status predicts long-term outcome in outpatients with coronary disease. CirculationYear: 2002106434912093768
12. Fox K,Alonso Garcia MA,Ardissino D,Buszman P. Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology Eur Heart JYear: 200627111341138116735367
13. Califf RM,Armstrong PW,Carver JR,D’Agostino RB. 27th Bethesda Conference: matching the intensity of risk factor management with the hazard for coronary disease events. Task Force 5. Stratification of patients into high, medium and low risk subgroups for purposes of risk factor management. J Am Coll CardiolYear: 199627100710198609316
14. Lanza GA. Cardiac syndrome X: a critical overview and future perspectives Heart Year: 20079315916616399854
15. Lanza GA,Crea F. Primary coronary microvascular dysfunction: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management. CirculationYear: 20101212317232520516386
16. Yamagishi M,Ito K,Tsutsui H,Miyazaki S. Lesion severity and hypercholesterolemia determine long-term prognosis of vasospastic angina treated with calcium channel antagonists. Circ JYear: 2003671029103514639019
17. Cannon GP,Braunwald E. Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A Textbook Of Cardiovascular Medicine,8th edYear: 200713191340
18. Topol EJ,Griffin BP. Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine, 3rd EditionYear: 2007Lippincott Williams&Wilkins
19. Antman EM,Cohen M,Bernink PJ,McCabe CH. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making JAMA Year: 200028483584210938172
20. Soiza RL,Leslie SJ,Williamson P,Wai S. Risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes—does the TIMI risk score work in unselected cases? QJMYear: 2006992818716410286
21. Granger CB,Goldberg RJ,Dabbous O,Pieper KS. Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern MedYear: 20031632345235314581255
22. Eagle KA,Lim MJ,Dabbous OH,Pieper KS. A validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registry. JAMA Year: 20042912727273315187054
23. de Araujo Goncalves P,Ferreira J,Aguiar C,Seabra-Gomes R. TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores: sustained prognostic value and interaction with revascularization in NSTE-ACS. Eur Heart JYear: 20052686587215764619
24. Lagerqvist B,Husted S,Kontny F,Stahle E. 5-year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a noninvasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up study LancetYear: 2006368998100416980115
25. Boersma E,Pieper KS,Steyerberg EW,Wilcox RG. Predictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. Results from an international trial of 9461 patients CirculationYear: 20001012557256710840005
26. Morrow DA,Cannon CP,Jesse RL,Newby LK. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Clinical Characteristics and Utilization of Biochemical Markers in Acute Coronary Syndromes CirculationYear: 200711513e356e37517384331
27. Buckley DI,Fu R,Freeman M. C-reactive protein as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analyses for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceAnn Intern MedYear: 2009151748349519805771
28. Morrow DA,Rifai N,Antman EM. C-reactive protein is a potent predictor of mortality independently of and in combination with troponin T in acute coronary syndromes: a TIMI 11A substudy. Thrombolysis in Myocardial InfarctionJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 1998317146014659626820
29. Bogaty P,Boyer L,Simard S. Clinical Utility of C-Reactive Protein Measured at Admission, Hospital Discharge, and 1 Month Later to Predict Outcome in Patients With Acute Coronary Disease: The RISCA (Recurrence and Inflammation in the Acute Coronary Syndromes) studyJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 200851242339234618549920
30. Tatu-Chitoiu G. Pre-Hospital Diagnostic and Management Guidelines of Acute Myocardial Infarction with ST Segment ElevationYear: 2009Ed. Curtea Veche2355
31. Malmberg K,Ryden L,Efendic S. Randomized trial of insulin-glucose infusion followed by subcutaneous insulin treatment in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIGAMI Study): effects on mortality at 1 year.J Am Coll CardiolYear: 19952657657797776
32. Ohman EM,Armstrong PW,White HD. Risk stratification with a point-of-care cardiac troponin T test in acute myocardial infarction. GUSTO III Investigators. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries.Am J CardiolYear: 1999841281128610614791
33. Antman EM,Anbe DT,Armstrong PW. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with STelevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice GuidelinesCirculationYear: 200411082292
34. Topol E,The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarctionN Engl J MedYear: 19933296736828204123
35. Killip III T,Kimball JT. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patientsAm J CardiolYear: 1967204574646059183
36. Topol EJ,Van de Werf FJ. Acute Myocardial infarction: Early Diagnosis and ManagementTextbook of Cardiovascular MedicineYear: 20073rd EditionLippincott Williams&Wilkins281302
37. Manes C,Pfeffer MA,Rutherford JD. Value of the electrocardiogram in predicting left ventricular enlargement and dysfunction after myocardial infarctionAm J MedYear: 20031149910512586228
38. Wong CK,Gao W,Stewart RA. aVR ST elevation: an important but neglected sign in ST elevation acute myocardial infarctionEur Heart JYear: 201031151845185320513728
39. Wolak A,Yaroslavtsev S,Amit G. Grade 3 ischemia on the admission electrocardiogram predicts failure of ST resolution and of adequate flow restoration after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarctionAm Heart JYear: 200715341041717307421
40. Forrester JS,Diamond GA,Swan HJ. Correlative classification of clinical and hemodynamic function after acute myocardial infarctionAm J CardiolYear: 199739137145835473
41. Van de Werf F,Bax J,Betriu A. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation. Full text. The Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of CardiologyEur Heart JYear: 2008292909294519004841
42. Lee KL,Woodlief LH,Topol EJ. Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction. Results from an international trial of 41021 patientsCirculationYear: 199591165916687882472
43. Cheitlin MD,Armstrong WF,Aurigemma GP. ACC/AHA/ASE 2003 guideline update for the clinical application of echocardiography:A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Pracice Guidelines.CirculationYear: 20031081146116212952829
44. Wijns W,Kolh P. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS).Eur Heart JYear: 2010312501255520802248
45. Sheehan FH,Braunwald E,Canner P. The effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy on left ventricular function: a report on tissue-type plasminogen activator and streptokinase form the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI Phase I) trial.CirculationYear: 1987758178293103950
46. Van ‘t Hof AW,Liem A,Suyapranata H. Angiographic assessment of myocardial reperfusion in patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: myocardial blush grade. Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group.CirculationYear: 199897230223069639373

Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1 

Comparison of risk factors considered in the overall cardiovascular risk scores (according to [9])


Framingham SCORE PROCAM (men) Reynolds (men)
Risk factors Age, sex, total cholesterol, HDL, smoking, BPs, antihypertensive medication Age, sex, total cholesterol – HDL ratio, smoking, BPs Age, LDL, HDL, smoking, diabetes, BPs, triglycerides, family history Age, total cholesterol, HDL, smoking, BPs, CRP, family history of MI at age <60 years
Electronic address http://hp2010.nhlbihi.net/atpiii/calculator http://www.heartscore.org http://www.chdtaskforce.com/coronary_risk_assessment.html http://www.reynoldsriskscore.org/

[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2 

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification of Stable Angina (according to [10])


Class Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification
I Ordinary physical activity does not cause angina, such as walking and climbing stairs. Angina with strenuous or rapid or prolonged exertion at work or recreation.
II Slight limitation of ordinary activity. Walking or climbing stairs rapidly, walking uphill, walking or stair climbing after meals, or in cold, or in wind, or under emotional stress, or only during the few hours after awakening.Walking more than 2 blocks on the level and climbing more than one flight of ordinary stairs at a normal pace and in normal conditions.
III Marked limitation of ordinary physical activity. Walking one to two blocks on the level and climbing one flight of stairs in normal conditions and at normal pace.
IV Inability to carry on any physical activity without discomfort - anginal syndrome may be present at rest.

[TableWrap ID: T3] Table 3 

Braunwald Classification of Unstable Angina (according to [17])


Class Severity
I New onset of severe angina or accelerated angina; no rest pain
II Angina at rest within past month but not within preceding 48 h (angina at rest, subacute)
III Angina at rest within 48 h (angina at rest, acute)
Clinical circumstances
A Develops in Presence of Extracardiac Condition That Intensifies Myocardial Ischemia (Secondary UA)
B Develops in absence of extracardiac conditions (Primary UA)
C Develops within 2 weeks of AMI (Postinfarction UA)

[TableWrap ID: T4] Table 4 

Risk Stratification Based on Noninvasive Testing (according to [18])


Risk Parameters
High Risk >3% annual mortality rate 1. Severe resting left ventricular dysfunction (LV EF < 35 %)
2. High-risk treadmill score (score ≤ -11)
3. Severe exercise left ventricular dysfunction (exercise LV EF < 35 %)
4. Stress-induced large perfusion defect (particularly if anterior)
5. Stress-induced multiple perfusion defects of moderate size
6. Large, fixed perfusion defect with LV dilation or increased lung uptake (thallium-201)
8. Echocardiographic wall motion abnormality (involving > two segments) developing at low dose of dobutamine (≤10 mg/kg/min) or at a low heart rate (<120 bpm)
9. Stress echocardiographic evidence of extensive ischemia
Intermediate Risk 1–3 % annual mortality rate 1. Mild/moderate resting left ventricular dysfunction (LV EF = 35–49%)
2. Intermediate-risk treadmill score (-11 < score < 5)
3. Stress-induced moderate perfusion defect without LV dilation or increased lung intake (thallium-201)
4. Limited stress echocardiographic ischemia with a wall motion abnormality only at higher doses of dobutamine involving ≤ two segments
Low Risk < 1% annual mortality rate 1. Low-risk treadmill score (score ≥ 5)
2. Normal or small myocardial perfusion defect at rest or with stress
3. Normal stress echocardiographic wall motion or no change of limited resting wall motion abnormalities during stress

[TableWrap ID: T5] Table 5 

TIMI risk score (according to [19])


Characteristics Age > 65 years
At least 3 risk factors for CHD¹
Significant coronary stenosis (eg, prior coronary stenosis ≥ 50%)
ST deviation
Severe anginal symptoms (eg, > 2 anginal events in last 24 h)
Use of aspirin in last 7 days
Elevated serum cardiac markers²
Score Rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and severe recurrent ischemia prompting urgent revascularization through 14 days
0/1 4,7%
2 8,3%
3 13,2%
4 19,9%
5 26,2%
6/7 40,9%
¹Risk factors include: family history of CHD, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, or being a current smoker;
²Creatine kinase MB fraction and/or cardiac-specific troponin level.

[TableWrap ID: T6] Table 6 

In-hospital mortality and 6 months mortality according to GRACE risk score (according to [22])


Risk grade Score In-hospital mortality (%)
Low risk ≤ 108 < 1
Intermediate risk 109 - 140 1 – 3
High risk > 140 > 3
Risk grade Score Mortality at 6 months (%)
Low risk ≤ 88 < 3
Intermediate risk 89 - 118 3 – 8
High risk > 118 > 8

[TableWrap ID: T7] Table 7 

Types of biomarkers used in risk stratification and choice of appropriate therapy in acute coronary syndromes (according to [18])


Markers Example
Necrosis markers Troponin
Inflammation markers CRP, myeloperoxidase, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, soluble ligand CD-40, interleukin 6
Hemodynamic stress and neurohormonal activation BNP, NT-proBNP
Renal impairment NT-proBNP, creatinine clearance, cystatin C, NGAL
Bioumoral particular context, vascular injury Fibrinogen, platelet agregability
Accelerated atherosclerosis Hemoglobin A1C

[TableWrap ID: T8] Table 8 

Clinical criteria for assessing risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction - pre-hospital (according to [30])


Parameter Low risk High risk
Age (years) < 70 > 70
AV (bpm) >60 , < 110 <60, >110
TAs (mmHg) > 120 < 120
Pulmonary rales No Yes
3rd Sound No Yes
Signs of shock No Yes

[TableWrap ID: T9] Table 9 

Hemodynamic profiles in patients with acute myocardial infarction (according to [30])


Hemodynamic profile Dyspnoea SBP mmHg AV bpm Teguments Cianosis Jugular veins Rales Diuresis
Normodynamic - N N N - N - N
Hyperdynamic - >140 >120 N - N - N
Hypotension-bradycardia - <95 <60 N - N - N
Hypovolaemia - <95 >100 N - N - N/oliguria
Pump failure +/++/+++ N/<95 N/>100 N/cold - N/turg +/++/+++ N/oliguria
RV infarction -/+ N/<95 >100 cold ++ N/turg -/+ N/oliguria
Cardiogenic shock +++ <95 >100 cold +++ N/turg +++ N/oliguria
N= normal

[TableWrap ID: T10] Table 10 

Killip classification of acute myocardial infarction (modified after [34,35])


Class Clinic “Historical” mortality (%) Mortality at 30 days (GUSTO-1) (%)
I No rales, no 3rd heart sound 8,4 5,1
II Pulmonary congestion with rales < 50% of the lung fields or 3rd heart sound 30,5 13,6
III Pulmonary oedema with rales > 50% of the lung fields 44 32,2
IV Cardiogenic shock 82,1 57,8

[TableWrap ID: T11] Table 11 

Topol Classification of MI based on ECG at admission correlated with angiographic data (according to [36])


Occlusion location ECG at admission Mortality at 30 days Mortality at 1 year
1. LAD -proximal Before the first septal perforating artery ↑ST in DI, aVL, V1-V6 and fascicular block or bundle branch block 19,6% 25,6%
2. LAD - medium After the first septal erforating artery, before the great diagonal artery ↑ST in DI, aVL, V1-V6 9,2% 12,4%
3. LAD - distal or Diagonal artery After the great diagonal artery or first diagonal leasion ↑ST in V1-V4 or ↑ST in DI, aVL, V5-V6 6,8% 10,2%
4. Inferior moderate MI (RV, posterior, lateral) Proximal RCA or CX ↑ST in DII, DIII, aVF and any or all of the following: a) V1, V3R, V4R b) V5-V6 c) R>S in V1-V2 6,4% 8,4%
5. Inferior small MI Distal RCA or CX or CX branches ↑ST in DII, DIII, aVF 4,5% 6,7%

[TableWrap ID: T12] Table 12 

Indications for myocardial revascularization modality of choice (surgical versus interventional) (according to [44])


Coronary anatomy CABG PCI
1VD or 2VD – non-proximal LAD IIbC IC
1VD or 2VD – proximal LAD IA IIa B
3VD simple lesions, full functional revascularization achievable with PCI, SYNTAX score ≤22 IA IIa B
3VD complex lesions, incomplete revascularization achievable with PCI, SYNTAX score > 22 IA III A
Left main (isolated or 1VD, ostium/shaft) IA IIa B
Left main (isolated or 1VD, distal bifurcation) IA IIb B
Left main + 2VD or 3VD, SYNTAX score ≤ 32 IA IIb B
Left main + 2VD or 3VD, SYNTAX score ≥33 IA III B

[TableWrap ID: T13] Table 13 

Grading of coronary flow (according to [45])


Grade Definition
0 : no perfusion - no antegrade flow beyond the point of occlusion
1 : penetration with minimal perfusion - the contrast material passes beyond the area of obstruction, but "hangs up" and fails to opacify the entire coronary bed distal to the obstruction for duration of the cine run
2 : partial perfusion -the contrast material passes across the obstruction and opacifies the coronary bed distal to the obstruction; the rate of entry of contrast material into the vessel distal to the obstruction or its rate of clearance from the distal bed (or both) are perceptibly slower than its entry into or clearance from comparable areas not perfused by the previously occluded vessel, e.g., the opposite coronary artery or the coronary bed proximal to the obstruction.
3 : complete perfusion - antegrade flow into the bed distal to the obstruction occurs as promptly as antegrade flow into the bed proximal to the obstruction, and clearance of contrast material from the involved bed is as rapid as clearance from an uninvolved bed in the same vessel or the opposite artery

[TableWrap ID: T14] Table 14 

Grading of myocardial blush (according to [46])


MBG 0 no myocardial blush or contrast density; myocardial blush persisted ("staining"): leakage of the contrast medium into the extravascular space
MBG 1 minimal myocardial blush or contrast density
MBG 2 moderate myocardial blush or contrast density but less than that obtained during angiography of a contralateral or ipsilateral non–infarct-related coronary artery
MBG 3 normal myocardial blush or contrast density, comparable with that obtained during angiography of a contralateral or ipsilateral non–infarct-related coronary artery


Article Categories:
  • General Article

Keywords: cardiovascular risk, angina, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome.

Previous Document:  New application of diffusion tensor imaging in neurosurgery.
Next Document:  Probiotics and periodontal health.