| Literature DB >> 23959850 |
R B Grobben1, W A van Klei, D E Grobbee, H M Nathoe.
Abstract
Recognition of myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery is difficult, since strong analgesics (e.g. opioids) can mask anginal symptoms, and ECG abnormalities are subtle or transient. Thorough knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms is therefore essential. These mechanisms can be subdivided into four groups: type I myocardial infraction (MI), type II MI, non-ischaemic cardiac pathology, and non-cardiac pathology. The incidence of type I MI in patients with a clinical suspicion of perioperative acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is 45-57 %. This percentage is higher in patients with a high likelihood of MI such as patients with ST-elevation ACS. Of note, the generalisability of this statement is limited due to significant study limitations. Non-ischaemic cardiac pathology and non-cardiac pathology should not be overlooked as a cause of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI). Especially pulmonary embolism and dysrhythmias are a common phenomenon, and may convey important prognostic value. Implementation of routine postoperative troponin assessment and accessible use of minimally invasive imaging should be considered to provide adequate individualised therapy. Also, addition of preoperative imaging may improve the stratification of high-risk patients who may benefit from preoperative or perioperative interventions.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23959850 PMCID: PMC3751022 DOI: 10.1007/s12471-013-0463-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neth Heart J ISSN: 1568-5888 Impact factor: 2.380
Study design
| Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Method to define MI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dawood | Necropsya | Retrospective | Aetiological | Case control | HPe |
| Cohen | Necropsyb | Retrospective | Aetiological | Cohort | HPe |
| Gualandro | In-vivoc | Prospective | Aetiological | Case control | CAGf,g |
| Berger | In-vivo d | Retrospective | Therapeutic | Cohort | CAGh |
MI Myocardial infarction
CAG Coronary Angiography
HP Histopathology
aFatal intraoperative MI, or a MI <30 days after non-cardiac surgery versus fatal non-perioperative MI
bFatal postoperative MI ≤72 h after non-cardiac surgery
cSuspicion of ACS <30 days after non-cardiac surgery versus non-perioperative ACS versus stable CAD
dReferred for CAG because of a suspicion of acute coronary syndrome <7 days after non-cardiac surgery
eHistopathological evidence of unstable plaque with disruption
fComplex atherosclerotic plaque morphology based on Goldstein’s criteria
gAmbrose type II eccentric lesions
hIntracoronary evidence of thrombus
Appraisal
| Generalisability | Validity | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study design | Domain | Determinant | Outcome | Blinding | Baseline | Standard | Routine screening | Missing data | |
| Dawood | +/− | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | ? |
| Cohen | +/− | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | ? |
| Gualandro | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + |
| Berger | – | + | – | – | – | +/− | ? | – | ? |
Study design Prospective aetiological study (+); retrospective aetiological study (+/−); other (−)
Domain Patients with a perioperative ACS: <7 days (+); >7 days (−)
Determinant Methods to define type I MI well described: yes (+); no (−)
Outcome Angiographic or histopathological data well described: yes (+); no (−)
Blinding Blinding of assessor for clinical characteristics: present (+); absent (−); incomplete documentation (?)
Baseline Adequate description of angina, relevant comorbidities and prior cardiac adverse events, ECG characteristics, relevant drug use: 4/4 determinants (+); 3 determinants (+/−), <3 determinants (−)
Standard Use of angiographic or histopathological data in accordance to objectified principals: yes (+); no (−); insufficient description (?)
Routine screening Use of routine diagnostic screening (routine ECG assessment, continuous ECG monitoring or routine biomarker assessment) : yes (+); no (−)
Missing data < 10 % (+); >10 % (−); not mentioned (?)
Results
| Clinical signs | Angiographic / histopathological data | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size (n) | Clinical signs of MI | Angina | STE-ACS | NSTE-ACS | Average time to CAG | Multivessel disease | No CAD | MI type I | Presence of thrombus | |
| Dawood | 42 | 100 % | – | – | – | – | 95.3 % | 4.7 % | 55%a | 28 % |
| Cohen | 26 | 42.3 % | – | – | – | – | 88 % | 11.5 % | 46%a | 35 % |
| Gualandro | 120 | 100 % | 40.7 % | 5.8 % | 65.1 % | 5.5 days | – | 5.8 % | 45%b | 7 % |
| 57 %c | ||||||||||
| Berger | 48 | 100 % | 100 % | 68.8 % | 31.3 % | 0.5 days | 87.5 % | 0 % | 90%d | 63 % |
n Number of included patients with perioperative MI
MI Myocardial infarction
STE-ACS ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome
NSTE-ACS Non ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome
CAG Coronary angiography
CAD Coronary artery disease
- Data not available
aHistopathological evidence of unstable plaque with disruption
bAmbrose type II eccentric lesions
cComplex atherosclerotic plaque morphology based on Goldstein’s criteria
dUnknown
Ambrose criteria [26]
| Type | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Concentric | Symmetric and smooth narrowing |
| Type I eccentric | Asymmetric stenosis with smooth borders and a broad neck |
| Type II eccentric | Asymmetric stenosis in the form of a convex intraluminal obstruction with a narrow neck due to one or more overhanging edges or irregular or scalloped borders, or both |
| Multiple irregularities | Three or more serial, closely spaced narrowing or severe diffuse irregularities within a vessel |
Criteria for complex lesions - Goldstein et al. [27]
| - An intraluminal filling defect consistent with thrombus, defined as abrupt vessel cutoff with persistence of contrast, or an intraluminal filling defect in a vessel within or adjacent to a stenotic region with surrounding homogeneous contrast opacification |
| - Plaque ulceration, defined by the presence of contrast and hazy contour beyond the vessel lumen; |
| - Plaque irregularity (haziness), defined by irregular margins or overhanging edges |
| - Impaired flow (TIMI flow < 3, except lesions characteristic of chronic total occlusion, identified as tapering lesions with multiple fine collaterals) |
Useful diagnostic modalities to determine the pathophysiology of PMI
| Type | Characteristics | |
|---|---|---|
| CAG | Pro | Best diagnostic accuracy for in-vivo assessment of myocardial infarction. Gold standard. Option of immediate assessment of clinical significance of coronary stenoses with FFR. Also, immediate PCI is possible |
| Con | Invasive, risk of iatrogenic coronary dissection. Not attractive in the early postoperative phase. Use of contrast fluid. Radiation exposure. Expensive | |
| IVUS | Pro | Assessment of both coronary lumen, and plaque morphology (e.g. atheroma). Assessment of unstable/vulnerable plaques; plaque rupture, erosion, and intracoronary thrombus. Especially useful in situations in which angiographic imaging is considered unreliable, such overlapping vessels that cannot be adequately assessed with CAG, and in case of outward plaque remodelling |
| Con | Expensive, invasive, time-consuming. Only performed by specialised angiographers. Use of contrast fluid. Radiation exposure. Measurement difficulties in case of bifurcations | |
| OCT | Pro | Approximately 10 times higher resolution than IVUS. Well suited for plaque morphologies within 500 μm. Furthermore, similar to IVUS |
| Con | Vessel occlusion by means of gentle balloon inflation, and vessel flushing with saline during imaging acquisition is required. Therefore, assessment of the left main coronary artery might not be desirable. Shallow penetration depth in comparison to IVUS. Not appropriate for evaluation of arterial remodelling. Furthermore, similar to IVUS | |
| Echocardiogram | Pro | Assessment of myocardial segmental wall kinetics, right ventricular kinetics, and valvular apparatus. No radiation exposure |
| Con | Coronary and pulmonary arteries no visualised, variable image quality | |
| CCTA | Pro | Number and degree of coronary artery stenoses, coronary calcifications, aspect of coronary plaque. Possibility of obtaining coronary artery calcium score |
| Con | Artefacts due to calcifications. Pulmonary arteries not or only partially visualised. Overestimation of stenosis degree in calcified plaques (blooming). Use of contrast fluid. Radiation exposure | |
| CTPA | Pro | Assessment of pulmonary arteries. Highly sensitive for PE |
| Con | Diagnosis of small perfusion defects with unknown prognostic value. Coronaries and heart are not accurately visualised. Use of contrast fluid. Radiation exposure | |
| Cardiac MRI | Pro | Highly sensitive for MI. Assessment of myocardial contraction, and segmental wall kinetics. No radiation exposure |
| Con | Coronaries and pulmonary arteries not or only partially visualised. Expensive, time-consuming. Use of gadolinium | |
| Cardiac adenosine stress MRI | Pro | Highly sensitive for MI. Assessment of clinical significance of coronary stenoses by generating chemically-induced myocardial ischaemia. |
| Con | Coronaries and pulmonary arteries not or only partially visualised. Expensive, time-consuming. Use of gadolinium. Use of adenosine. Limited availability |
PMI Perioperative Myocardial Injury
CAG Coronary Angiography
PCI Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
FFR Fractional Flow Reserve
IVUS Intravascular ultrasound
OCT Optical Coherence Tomography
CCTA Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography
PE Pulmonary Embolism
CTPA Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging