Lee, K L

aims: We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the SVEAT score in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in comparison with the well-established HEART and TIMI scores. background: Acute chest pain (ACP) is a common symptom in emergency departments. Various risk stratification tools have been developed to assess patients presenting with ACP. The Simple Vascular Event Assessment Tool (SVEAT) is the most recent scoring system introduced, based on five variables: Symptoms of chest pain, history of Vascular disease, ECG, Age, and Troponin-I. objective: We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the SVEAT score in predicting 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in comparison with the well-established HEART and TIMI scores. method: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across five databases until June 22, 2024. Four studies comprising 1,520 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The predictive accuracy of the SVEAT, HEART, and TIMI scores for 30-day MACE was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic, with values over 75% indicating significant heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons among the scores were performed using the Z-test. result: Pooled AUC for the SVEAT score was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), indicating superior predictive accuracy compared to the HEART (AUC: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.92) and TIMI (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.96) scores. However, significant heterogeneity (I² = 90.6%) was observed across studies, potentially due to variations in patient demographics, clinical settings, and outcome definitions. Despite the higher AUC, indirect Z-test comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between the scoring systems. conclusion: SVEAT score demonstrates potential as an accurate tool for predicting 30-day MACE in patients with ACP. other: N/A

Abstract Background Treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) may be associated with adverse cardiac events. Troponin elevation is part of the diagnostic criteria for ICI related myocarditis (ICIrM) and myocardial infarction (MI), however there is limited data for causes of troponin elevation independent of MI and ICIrM and their clinical outcomes with ICI therapy. Purpose To assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) in patients treated with ICI based on different etiologies and association with cardiac events. Methods All patients treated with ICI who had hs-TnT measured at a multi-center institution from 2011 to 2022 were included. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes, including cardiac death and MACE (MI, stroke, heart failure [HF]), and cause of hs-TnT elevation. Risk of cardiac events and mortality were compared for the different etiologies of hs-TnT elevation. Results Of 5,423 patients treated with ICI, 1669 had post-ICI hs-TnT measurement. Mean age was 68.7±11.3 years, 58.3% were male, with follow-up through one year from ICI first administration. Elevated hs-TnT was seen in 1136 patients, with the different causes for elevation depicted in Figure 1, panel A. ICIrM patients exhibited the highest median hs-TnT value of 364 ng/L (IQR 1096), followed by a median of 98 ng/L for MI/Type 2 ischemia, 61 ng/L for infection/sepsis, 51 ng/L for pulmonary embolus, 50 ng/L for HF and 27 ng/L for indeterminate causes, Figure 1, panel B. Additionally, median time from first ICI dose to hs-TnT elevation according to each of the diagnoses are depicted in Figure 1, panel C, with ICIrM showing the shortest median time of 44 days (IQR 74). Hs-TnT elevation in patients with ICIrM had the highest risk for cardiac death (HR 52.7, 95% CI 11.7-238.0, p<0.001), followed by hs-TnT elevation due to HF (HR 15.9, 95% CI 2.9-87.0, p=0.001), MI/type 2 ischemia (HR 11.6, 95% CI 2.4-56.1, p=0.002), and infection/sepsis (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.0-31.0, p=0.045) compared to those with no hs-TnT elevation, Figure 2, panel A. Similarly, patients with ICIrM had highest risk for MACE (HR 8.2, 95% CI 4.4-15.3, p<0.001), followed by increased hs-TnT due to MI/type 2 ischemia (HR 8.1, 95% CI 5.0-13.1, p<0.001), HF (HR 7.6, 95% CI 4.2-13.7, p<0.001), pulmonary embolism (HR 5.1, 95% CI 2.5-10.8, p<0.001), infection/sepsis (HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.4-7.0, p<0.001), and indeterminate cause (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.8, p<0.001), Figure 2, panel B. Conclusions Hs-TnT measurements have prognostic value for cardiac events in cancer patients receiving ICI therapy, including in those without ICIrM. Patients with ICIrM demonstrated the highest median hs-TnT levels and the poorest outcomes, with a graded response observed; the worst prognosis was seen in patients with hs-TnT elevation due to ICIrM, followed by other causes, and those without hs-TnT elevation had the best prognosis.Figure 1 Figure 2

Abstract Background/Introduction Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is common among elderly patients and is associated with a high risk of complications. Managing ACS, particularly dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), poses challenges due to the increased risk of recurrent hemorrhagic and ischemic events in this population. Purpose This study evaluated cardiovascular outcomes in patients ≥75 years that were initiated on DAPT with aspirin (ASA) plus either ticagrelor or clopidogrel following an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods We used the TriNetX repository to identify adult patients (≥75 years) diagnosed with AMI between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, who subsequently initiated DAPT and were not on anticoagulation. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: ASA + ticagrelor and ASA + clopidogrel. Outcomes assessed included major bleeding, repeat coronary intervention, all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and pacemaker implantation. Follow-up time was restricted to one year. A 1:1 propensity score matching algorithm was applied using the greedy nearest-neighbor method with a caliper of 0.1 pooled standard deviations to ensure balance (i.e., comorbidities, medications, laboratory values) between the two cohorts. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HR). Results Before propensity score matching (PSM), 19,859 patients were in the ASA + ticagrelor cohort, and 47,032 were in the ASA + clopidogrel cohort. Post-PSM, 19,746 patients remained in each cohort, with a mean age of 82.2 years and a mean follow-up duration of 298.77 days for the ASA + ticagrelor cohort and 297.59 days for the ASA + clopidogrel cohort. The ASA + ticagrelor cohort had a higher incidence of major bleeding (aOR 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08–1.31]) and pacemaker implantation (aOR 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02–1.29]) compared to the ASA + clopidogrel cohort. Event-free survival analysis showed lower survival rates for major bleeding (HR 1.18 [95% CI, 1.07–1.30]) and pacemaker implantation (HR 1.14 [95% CI, 1.01–1.28]). No significant differences were observed between cohorts in repeat coronary interventions (aOR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.88–1.03]), atrial fibrillation (aOR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.97–1.08]), all-cause mortality (aOR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.96–1.12]), all-cause hospitalization (aOR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.05]), or stroke (aOR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.86–1.04]). Conclusions In elderly patients, DAPT with ASA + ticagrelor was associated with higher rates of major bleeding and need for pacemaker compared to ASA + clopidogrel. Given the similar risks of recurrent coronary intervention and mortality between the two regimens, these findings highlight the need for careful consideration when selecting ticagrelor over clopidogrel in this population.

Abstract Background/Introduction Access to timely healthcare in disadvantaged areas remains essential to achieving equitable health outcomes, especially in regions facing structural and social vulnerabilities. Purpose To assess wait times for cardiovascular disease consultations in US-Mexico border regions compared to non-border regions among US Veterans. Methods This cross-sectional analysis included all veteran cardiovascular consultations referred through the Veterans Choice Program to community healthcare centers from 2014 to 2020. We obtained the average wait times in days for consultation approval, scheduling, completion, and total wait time from approval to consultation completion. All consultations were classified by county of residence as either within a US-Mexico border region or a non-border region, as per the La Paz Agreement. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of border status on average wait times. ARIMA modeling was completed to estimate forecasted wait times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results A total of 485,158 consultations related to outpatient cardiovascular disease were retrieved from the VA Healthcare System. Amongst these, 461,696 of the consultations were placed in non-border regions whereas 23,462 consultations were placed in US-Mexico border regions. The most common consultation requests were made for general cardiology clinic (n=365,227), echocardiography (n=32,017), cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation (n=40,699), and cardiac stress testing (n=16,258). Wait times for cardiovascular disease consultations were not higher in US-Mexico border counties than in non-border regions. For electrophysiology consultations specifically, border counties exhibited significantly shorter total wait times (coeff = -10.81, p=0.008). Additionally, while the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased total wait times in non-border areas (Figure 1), total wait times in border regions remained stable during this period (Figure 2). Conclusions Our findings suggest that US-Mexico border region status does not result in longer wait times for cardiovascular disease consultations, with the exception of shorter wait times for electrophysiology services. This study provides important insights into the unique dynamics of healthcare access in structurally disadvantaged regions, highlighting that wait times are not a significant barrier to cardiovascular care in border areas, and emphasizes the need to consider regional differences in healthcare delivery policies.