New UA/non-STEMI guidelines highlight new anticoagulants, diagnostic tests, physician decisions
Washington DC and Dallas, TX - The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have updated their 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina (UA)/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI), introducing a number of recommendations for initial diagnostic tests, choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy, and new anticoagulants [1]. The new document also highlights strategies and agents that are no longer considered valuable in the treatment or diagnosis of patients with unstable CAD.
The guidelines are published online August 6, 2007 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.
In an interview with heartwire, writing group chair Dr Jeffrey Anderson (University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City) highlighted some of the key changes in the updated guidelines.
"There have been a lot of new trials, new drugs, new anticoagulants, and new issues, so there are a moderate number of changes," he said. "I don't think there are a lot of things that are completely reversed, but there's certainly been an evolution and fine-tuning of the 2002 guidelines."
One of the overarching themes, according to Anderson, is a slight pullback in terms of the emphasis on an initial invasive strategy for all UA/NSTEMI patients. "In these guidelines we've sort of swung the pendulum back a little bit from the initial invasive strategy from 2002," he said. Instead, the 2007 update urges physicians to first establish whether patients are high or low risk and then apply the guidelines according to that initial risk assessment. "In low-risk patients, particularly low-risk women, an initially conservative strategy is more appropriate. . . . Low-risk patients should first be noninvasively risk-stratified and treated medically, but not all sent to the lab." Based on the ICTUS trial, the guidelines also state that an initially conservative strategy can also be considered in stabilized patients, he said
But Dr Eric Peterson (Duke University, Durham, NC), another member of the writing group, sees this slightly differently. "I take it almost the other way around," he told heartwire. "The guidelines give a 1a recommendation for use of an early invasive strategy in patients who match any of these risk factors, including those who have positive markers, but there is some latitude that's given to physiciansa 2b recommendationthat they can consider a conservative strategy if they initially stabilize the patient."
Peterson acknowledged there was "tension inside the guideline committee" about how to balance some of the conflicting trials in this areafor example, ICTUS vs ISAR-COOL or TACTICS-TIMI 18. "When it comes to the issue of invasive vs conservative strategies, there is evidence that goes both ways, depending on which study you choose to look at. . . . Following that evidence, there are differences in clinician opinion as to what the right strategy would be, and I think in part the guidelines reflect that."
What the guidelines do urge, says Peterson, is for physicians to first make the decision as to what treatment strategy they're going to take, then follow the recommended pathways according to what they've decided. "These guidelines give clinicians the mandate to make that decision up front and then to tailor the therapy that would go along with that, depending on what strategy you choose."
In with the new, out with the old
As expected, bivalirudin and fondaparinux have made it into the 2007 update. Both agents have a class 1 indication for use on top of antiplatelet therapy for patients in whom an invasive strategy is selected. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and enoxaparin are given class 1 indications in patients undergoing an invasive strategy or a conservative strategy, but fondaparinux is preferred over these other agents in patients at an increased risk of bleeding for whom a conservative strategy is selected. In UA/NSTEMI patients for whom an initial conservative strategy is selected (with the possibility of converting to an invasive strategy other than CABG), enoxaparin or fondaparinux are recommended over UFH.
Also new to the guidelines are recommendations for the use of multislice CT angiography and cardiac MRI, reflecting other recent appropriateness criteria and scientific statements dealing with imaging. Brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) makes its debut in the updated guidelines as a biomarker test that can be considered to supplement global risk assessment in ACS patients. Otherwise, a cardiac-specific troponin is now recommended as the "preferred marker."
"Troponin has continued to rise and really everything else has fallen way behind," Anderson explained. "In 2002, there was more attention paid to alternative markers; now we've sort of pushed those down the list."
Other notable changes or tweaks in the 2007 update include a fresh emphasis on reducing delays to initial evaluation and facilitated emergency-department (ED) diagnosis and triage, including the use of a 12-lead ECG ideally within 10 minutes of ED arrival. For patients treated invasively, recommended duration of clopidogrel therapy has been extended. "The guidelines now recommend that clopidogrel therapy be continued for at least one year after drug-eluting stent placement and ideally up to one year with a bare-metal stent or even with medical therapy, because we think the additional antiplatelet therapy seems to be beneficial," Anderson commented.
The new guidelines also give the option of using a higher loading dose of clopidogrel. "A lot of the more recent studies use 600 mg, and even though we need more studies in terms of larger numbers and hard outcomes, those studies look very promising. So we offer that as an option," Anderson said.
According to Anderson, recommendations for GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors are largely unchanged from the 2002 guidelines. "The only thing that's come along is whether, with high-risk ACS patients, you can just give clopidogrel alone without adding a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor," Anderson explained. "There's one study that has showed that adding on a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor did seem to benefit patients, so in higher-risk patients we're still suggesting you use a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor if you're doing an invasive strategy, even if you're using clopidogrel. In the lower-risk patients, you can use either one or the other; at least one and possibly both."
Finally, the guidelines also drive the final nail into the coffin for strategies that have proved nonbeneficial or harmful over the past five years, including the use of supplements such as beta-carotene, vitamins E and C, and folic acid. Also singled out as harmful in the new guidelines are hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), except for ASA, for UA/NSTEMI patients during hospitalization.
"If one looks at what has happened over the past five to 10 years, adverse outcomes in NSTEMI have really fallen dramatically," Anderson said. "The bottom line is, the guidelines seem to be working. In the past 10 years we've pushed the envelope in terms of evidence-based medicine for diagnostics and treatment, and we do seem to be having an impact on the risks associated with ACS. With that in mind, the message would be to push ahead and fine-tune what we do and hopefully get even better outcomes."
In the paper, Anderson disclosed receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; being on the speakers' bureau for Merck; and acting as a consultant/advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Sanofi, and ThromboVision. Peterson disclosed receiving research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, Millennium, and Schering-Plough and being on the speakers' bureau for Millennium and Schering-Plough.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
August 14, 2007 07:03 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Troponins only recommendation I'm wondering why other cardiac markers, specifically myoglobin, have been pushed further down the list of recommendations especially in the early identification of ACS patients? If you've found an ECG performed within ten minutes of a patient's ED arrival increases positive outcomes, why suggest a highly specific maker incapable of elevating in the blood for the first 4-8 hours after the on-set of chest pain be the best marker choice for patients? What happen to all the data on inlammatory markers? Even the highly specific troponins have created much confusion for ED physicians as well as cardiologists. The specificity and sensitivity of these highly sensitive troponins, such as Bayer's Ultra and Dade's HS troponins have only contributed to lower sensitivity and specificity in the early AMI presenters either STEMI or NSTEMI. I truly do not understand and am very concerned with this recommendation. I also feel as Dr. Peterson does, NSTEMI patients should be reperfused as early as possible. Perhaps you can speak to this decision as well.
Thank you for your feedback,
Wendy |
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 14, 2007 07:56 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Surgeons are generally unhappy with these recommendation Wendy,
I cath'd a gentleman yesterday with a recent knee replacement. St depression on admit on his drive home from rehab. Troponin 1.5 max. All symptoms improved on Betablocker/ asa/Heparin. EF excellent, BUT non sustained V-tach at night, just 3-5 beats even into the fourth day. No pain. Ambulated with ST depression down the hall by monitor but I just had a bad feeling. Has significant COPD so I hated to torture him with adenosine. Can't ambulate with a walker. Certainly not giving dobutamine with Vtach.
I DID NOT give clopedigrel or 2b3a. Was already on coumadin but I take issue with the "everybody gets clopedigrel and 2b3a" recommendation for NonSTEMI or UA patients.
Here is the way it played out:
Cath: EF 60%, no significant MR. Left main 90%, Right main 99%. He'll go to the OR tomorrow.
If I had given 2b3a and/or clopedigrel, My surgeon would have hired a hit man to take me out.
So, these guidelines though excellent for most scenarios is still not a "one size fits all" list of recommendations. Nothing replaces a gut feeling sometimes.
I do appreciate getting the Vit E, Folic Acid, etc. out of the picture.
I don't use myoglobin. I just get an echo at the bedside, do serial ECG's which really seem to help . A quick bedside echo solves a great majority of cardiac mysteries in the ER.
Melissa |
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 15, 2007 12:46 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
My bias on GP 2b/3a If I had given 2b3a and/or clopidogrel, my surgeon would have hired a hit man to take me out.
---Melissa Walton-Shirley
1. With Integrilin / Eptifibitide, surgery can almost immediately be performed. (One of our surgeons actually thinks that recent Integrilin may actually protect platelets from inappropriate activation early during a pump run.)
2. Surgery usually is delayed with prior Reopro / Abciximab or Plavix / Clopidogrel, typically for 5 days. These two drugs “take out” the platelets for the life of the thrombocyst, which is 8 to 10 days.
3. In my opinion, Aggrastat / Tirofiban seems to be the least effective of the GP 2b/3a. But, it does have a short half life.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 15, 2007 11:03 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Melissa's Surgeons Melissa-
I agree with James. At most, you need to wait 6-8 hrs between discontinuing a small molecule 2b3a inhibitior and cardiac surgery. Clopidogrel is different obviously; but I think your surgeons may need a refresher course in cardiovascular pharmacology. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 15, 2007 08:20 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Additional thoughts So, it seems that we are all in agreement that loading with clopedigrel will delay surgery for 5 days. ( I contacted another surgeon in another center today who agreed). The way the surgeon put it, "it will log jam paitients all over the country, driving up the cost of medicine", depleting medicare DRG's.
Cardiologists can counter "decreased 30 day mortality and reinfarction rates" will lower the cost of medicine over all, BUT, I can't really think of many patients who came to the hospital with UA who were placed on beta blocker, ASA, statin who did not cool off. .
Also, with surveys out there like "The TOP 100 hospitals", increased transfusion rates will certainly impact surgical rankings and outcome.
If NSTEMI/UA patients fail the standard beta blocker, heparin and aspirin, I think we have to make certain that their heart rates aren't still 88 bpm and BP's elevated before we break out the very expensive 2b3a's . Then, it's worth the risk/cost in the 88 year old.
I'm not trying to debate this issue as much as discuss it. I think we are echoing the very conversations that are taking place in hallways and physician's lounges all over the country, especially when the sugeons walk in. Not that yesterday's guidelines are very much of a suprise, once you make something "official" it's fodder for conversation. Also, non cardiologists---ER physicians and family physicians are going to start loading with clopedigrel like crazy. Never will there have been so many sore groins and sore surgeons all at the same time in the history of angiography if these guidelines are implemented without some discretion.
Melissa
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 16, 2007 08:32 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
the Devil's in the details I looked over the section on antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy in detail, but I think many people might just scan the algorithms. The text does a good job discussing the nuances we face in clinical practice. I also think some people may scan the algorithms to see if their current stratgey is supported by the guidelines. The algorithms themselves are overly simplistic.
Many people are nervous about using 2b3a's, but there is good data in higher-risk patients, and these drugs are probably as safe or safer than UFH, which is frequently dosed too high.
This would also be a good opportunity for Cardiologists to present the updated guidelines to ER/FM/IM docs during hospital grand rounds or whatever forum works for your particular practice. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 17, 2007 06:51 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sometime's the Devil hides in the details (kidding) William,
I downloaded the guidelines and read them in detail as well as interviews with Nannette Wenger and several other writers of the guidelines before making my commentary. (Hers in particular were excellent and concise- check the ACC website). Unfortunately, many of the physicians that will be implementing these guidelines are non cardiologists and won't be reading in detail . It's just a reality. I think you make an excellent point when you say that most will just be scanning the algorithms.
If all of the 1.5 million hospital admissions per year in the US for UA are loaded with clopedigrel, think of what percentage will still get a cath. Then consider that roughly 15% of those cath'd will get/need CABG. Multiply that number by 5 for the number of extra days of hospitalization required. Prolonged length of stay will be a reality. We can't sweep that fact under the clopedigrel rug without getting noticed.
I should have made distinction between Abcix/tirob in my commentary. Haven't used Rheopro since we started our primary PCI program. (Gone are the days of R & R literally---retavase/rheopro as well as sleep). Yet, getting those patients into the lab that really need a cath, most do just fine with ASA/Heparin/BB until I can get them on the table. I utilize 2b3a if ECG changesand/or chest pain recurr a few times monthly but that's a minority of patients for us. Integrelin is used for PCI mostly here.
Just as all guidelines evolve, I think after around 5-10 years of length of stay issues, we'll probably see some amendment of recommendations for blanket loading with clopedigrel. Just my guess.
Melissa
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 19, 2007 06:07 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
pretreatment I agree it is a huge money issue if your institution has surgeons who won't touch patients on Plavix (I'll avoid whether this is the right approach or not). But I've taken the approach of looking at each patient indvidually. It's hard to ignore all the RCTs for Plavix and IIb/IIIa's just because the surgeons (and sometimes interventionalists) don't like it.
1. Nearly all of the data from CURE, CREDO, etc. shows pretreatment was really only helpful if it occured more than 24h prior to PCI. Most of my USA/NSTEMI patients get cathed within 24hours. If I know this isn't going to happen (i.e. Saturday morning admit for Monday cath), I recommend pretreatment. Otherwise, they get loaded in the cath lab.
2. Very low threshold for IIb/IIIa in all patients high risk/trop positive.
3. Up until ISAR-REACT2, I think you could argue doing one or the other. Now I think we have data suggesting we should be trying to do both.
I'm not sure delaying a few patients early CABG outweighs the benefits of these treatments prior to cath. I'm interested who others are practicing. Obviously, this a big change for the guidelines and wondering if it will change others opinions or not.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |