Search

Aim: Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) carries a poor prognostic with high mortality rates and multiple scoring systems have been developed to assess its prognostic. This study sought to evaluate the performance of three prognostic scores to predict survival in OHCA patients due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Methods and Results: This is an observational, monocentric study including 386 consecutive patients treated for OHCA due to ACS, treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, between 2007 and 2019. The OHCA, NULL-PLEASE and CAHP scores were calculated respectively for 370 patients (95.9%), 371 patients (96.1%) and 350 patients (90.7%). A C-statistic analysis was performed to determine score performance. The areas under the curve for the OHCA, NULL-PLEASE and CAHP scores were 0.861 (95% CI, 0.823-0.898), 0.789 (95% CI, 0.744-0.834) and 0.830 (95% CI, 0.788-0.872) respectively demonstrating good performance. The OHCA score performed better than the NULL-PLEASE score (p = 0.001), and there was no difference between the CAHP and the NULL-PLEASE score (p = 0.062) nor between the OHCA and the CAHP score (p = 0.105).Conclusion: The OHCA score, the NULL-PLEASE score and the CAHP score performed well in predicting in-hospital death in patients presenting OHCA secondary to ACS. The NULL-PLEASE score is the easiest to use but performed less accurately than the OHCA score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) continues to be a major global cause of death, affecting approximately 67 to 170 per 100,000 inhabitants annually in Europe, with a persisting high rate of mortality of up to 90% in most countries. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents one of the most significant cause of cardiac arrest, and therefore invasive coronary angiography (CAG) with subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a fundamental component in the management of OHCA patients. Recent evidence from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenges the routine use of early CAG in the larger subgroup of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Additionally, emerging data suggest that individuals resuscitated from OHCA related to ACS face an elevated risk of thrombotic and bleeding events. Thus, specific invasive coronary strategies and anti-thrombotic therapies tailored to this unique setting of OHCA need to be considered for optimal in-hospital management. We sought to provide an overview of the prevalence and complexity of coronary artery disease observed in this specific population, discuss the rationale and timing for CAG after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), summarize invasive coronary strategies, and examine recent findings on antithrombotic therapies in the setting of ACS complicated by OHCA. By synthesizing the existing knowledge, this review aims to contribute to the understanding and optimization of care for OHCA patients to improve outcomes in this challenging clinical scenario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of both stent thrombosis and bleeding. The use of aggressive antiplatelet therapy could lead to a higher risk of bleeding in these patients. Indeed, data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPi) use in this specific indication is scarce.Aim: We sought to evaluate the benefit and safety of GPi use in OHCA patients requiring PCI.Methods and Results: Between January 2007 and December 2017, we retrospectively included all consecutive patients treated with PCI for an OHCA from cardiac cause. Clinical, procedural data and in-hospital outcomes were collected. Three hundred and eighty-five patients were included. GPi were administrated in 41.3% of cases (159 patients). Patients who received GPi were younger, had less prior PCI, more often a TIMI 0 or 1 flow before PCI and thromboaspiration use. There were no differences regarding in-hospital definite stent thrombosis among the two groups (11.9% in the GPi group vs 7.1% in the non-GPi group, p = 0.10) or in-hospital mortality (48.6% vs 49.3%, p = 0.68). The incidence of any bleeding (33.3% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.002), and major bleeding (BARC 3-5) (21.9% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.007) was significantly higher in patients receiving GPi. Indeed, using multivariate analysis, GPi use was predictor of major bleeding (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.06-3.08; p = 0.03).Conclusions: In patients treated with PCI for OHCA from cardiac cause, GPi use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events, without difference on in-hospital stent thrombosis or death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]