Connect
MJA
MJA

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016

Derek P Chew, Ian A Scott, Louise Cullen, John K French, Tom G Briffa, Philip A Tideman, Stephen Woodruffe, Alistair Kerr, Maree Branagan and Philip EG Aylward
Med J Aust 2016; 205 (3): 128-133. || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00368
Published online: 1 August 2016

Abstract

Introduction: The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points.

Main recommendations: This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the:

  • diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS;
  • provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction;
  • risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS;
  • administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and
  • implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation.

 

Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual’s needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.



These clinical guidelines have been developed to assist in managing patients presenting with chest pain suspected to be caused by an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and those with confirmed ACS. The development of these guidelines has been informed by reviews of the literature dealing with key aspects of chest pain assessment and ACS care, as well as broad consultation with local opinion leaders, stakeholder groups and the public. The recommendations focus on the core clinical and system-based components of care most associated with improved clinical outcomes. As such, these guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Acute coronary syndromes clinical care standard, developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care,1 and the Australian acute coronary syndromes capability framework, developed by the National Heart Foundation of Australia (NHFA).2 Guidance regarding both the strength of evidence supporting the recommendations and their potential impact on outcomes is provided to assist in informing clinical practice.3,4 Additional guidance regarding the timing and considerations informing the use of therapies and management strategies is given in the accompanying practice advice. A full version of the NHFA and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016 is available at: http://heartfoundation.org.au/for-professionals/clinical-information/acute-coronary-syndromes.

Methods

The NHFA, in partnership with the CSANZ, has undertaken an update to the NHFA/CSANZ Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2006 and addenda of 2007 and 2011.5-7 The updated guideline will provide a synthesis of current evidence-based guidance for health professionals caring for patients with ACS.

The ACS Guideline Development Working Group comprised an Executive and the four writing groups of which it had oversight, covering the topics of chest pain, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST segment elevation ACS (NSTEACS) and secondary prevention. In addition, a Reference Group included representatives from stakeholder groups, potential endorsing organisations and regional experts. The Working Group comprised a broad mix of health professionals, including a general practitioner, general physician, cardiac surgeon, consumer representative, pathologist, ambulance service representative, cardiologists, emergency physicians, exercise physiologists and cardiac nurses.

The Working Group consulted state-based cardiac clinical networks and the Reference Group on the scope determination for the updated guideline. Based on this consultation, the expert Working Group generated clinical questions to inform the literature search of evidence required for the guideline’s development. The separate writing groups reviewed and graded the evidence, generated and graded recommendations, and produced draft sections for the four topic areas. The Executive group provided oversight for this process and approved the final document.

A draft of the guideline was open for a 30-day period of public consultation in April 2016 to capture stakeholder views and aid engagement with the guideline once completed. Attention has been paid to ensuring appropriate governance processes were in place, to ensure transparency, minimise bias, manage conflict of interest and limit other influences during guideline development.

Key evidence-based recommendations

Each recommendation is presented with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) strength of recommendation (Appendix 1) and a National Health and Medical Research Council level of evidence (Level) (Appendix 2). Practice points (PPs) are also provided.

Assessment of possible cardiac causes of chest pain

 

  • It is recommended that a patient with acute chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of an ACS receives a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and this ECG is assessed for signs of myocardial ischaemia by an ECG-experienced clinician within 10 minutes of first acute clinical contact.8 GRADE: Strong; Level: IIIC

    • PP: Oxygen supplementation. The routine use of oxygen therapy among patients with a blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) level > 93% is not recommended, but its use when the SaO2 is below this level is advocated, despite the absence of clinical data.9,10 However, care should be exercised in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease where the target SaO2 level is to be 88–92%.

    • PP: Initial aspirin therapy. In all patients with possible ACS and without contraindications, aspirin (300 mg orally, dissolved or chewed) should be given as soon as possible after presentation. Additional antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, or other therapies such as β-blockers, should not be given to patients without a confirmed or probable diagnosis of ACS.

     

  • A patient presenting with acute chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of an ACS should receive care guided by an evidence-based Suspected ACS Assessment Protocol (Suspected ACS-AP) that includes formal risk stratification.11 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Selecting and implementing a Suspected ACS-AP. For hospitals using sensitive or highly sensitive troponin assays, the ADAPT or modified ADAPT protocol, respectively, identifies low risk patients (< 1% major adverse cardiac events [MACE] at 30 days) on the basis of negative troponin test results at both 0 and 2 hours, a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score of 0 (ADAPT) or 0 or 1 (modified ADAPT), and no ischaemic changes on ECG at both 0 and 2 hours.12,13

     

  • Using serial sampling, cardiac-specific troponin levels should be measured at hospital presentation and at clearly defined periods after presentation using a validated Suspected ACS-AP in patients with symptoms of possible ACS.14 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Timing of troponin testing. Most patients with an underlying diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have elevated troponin levels within 3–6 hours of symptom onset, although some assays may not show elevated levels for up to 12 hours (Box 1). Validated rapid rule-in and rule-out algorithms for AMI incorporated into Suspected ACS-APs and/or using highly sensitive troponin assays may reduce the serial testing time to 1–2 hours after presentation.18,19,21,24,25 Incorporating sensitive or highly sensitive troponin assay results into the ADAPT or modified ADAPT protocol, respectively, allows early (2 hours after emergency department presentation) risk stratification.12,13

     

  • Non-invasive objective testing is recommended in intermediate risk patients, as defined by a validated Suspected ACS-AP, with normal serial troponin and ECG testing and who remain symptom free.26 GRADE: Weak; Level: IA

    • PP: Timing of testing. High risk patients require further objective testing during the index admission (Box 2). Intermediate risk patients may be safely accelerated for early inpatient testing or discharged for outpatient testing, ideally within 7 days but acceptable up to 14 days after presentation. Investigation before discharge from the emergency department is desirable among patients with characteristics associated with significant failure to re-attend for medical review, given the higher rates of MACE in such patients.27

     

  • Patients in whom no further objective testing for coronary artery disease is recommended are those at low risk, as defined by a validated Suspected ACS-AP: age < 40 years, symptoms atypical for angina, in the absence of known coronary artery disease, with normal troponin and ECG testing and who remain symptom free.26 GRADE: Weak; Level: III-3C

 

Diagnostic issues, risk stratification and acute management of ACS

 

  • The routine use of validated risk stratification tools for ischaemic and bleeding events (eg, GRACE score for ischaemic risk and CRUSADE score for bleeding risk) may assist in patient-centric clinical decision making in regards to ACS care.28-30 GRADE: Weak; Level: IIIB

    • PP: Choice of risk score. For ischaemic risk, the GRACE risk score is superior to the TIMI risk score in terms of discriminating between high risk and intermediate or low risk patients.28 However, estimating risk of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) for an individual patient depends on local validation. For bleeding risk, the CRUSADE risk score is preferred, although it has limited validation in the Australian setting.31

     

 

Acute reperfusion and invasive management strategies for ACS

 

  • For patients with STEMI presenting within 12 hours of symptom onset, and in the absence of advanced age, frailty and comorbidities that influence the individual’s overall survival, emergency reperfusion therapy with either primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolytic therapy is recommended.32,33 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: ECG interpretation. In situations where expertise in ECG interpretation may not be available, an electronic algorithm for ECG interpretation (coupled with review by an expert) can assist in diagnosing STEMI. Local or state care pathways should incorporate means for allowing expert ECG reading within 10 minutes of first contact, integrated with clinical decision making to enable timely reperfusion.

     

  • Primary PCI is preferred for reperfusion therapy in patients with STEMI if it can be performed within 90 minutes of first medical contact; otherwise, fibrinolytic therapy is preferred for those without contraindications.34-36 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Strategies for reducing the time to reperfusion therapy. Coordinated protocols with planned decision making that incorporates ambulance services and paramedics, first-responder primary care physicians, and emergency and cardiology departments are critical for achieving acceptable reperfusion times. Strategies need to be tailored to the local community and the distribution of emergency services. Strategies that effectively shorten the time to reperfusion include: developing hospital networks with pre-determined management pathways for reperfusion; pre-hospital ECG and single call catheter laboratory activation; pre-hospital fibrinolytic therapy administered by suitably trained clinicians (eg, paramedics); the bypassing, where appropriate, of non-PCI-capable hospitals; and bypassing the emergency department on arrival in PCI-capable centres. Furthermore, an established capability for timely expert consultation for complex clinical scenarios is highly desirable. In the context of a system-based approach to reperfusion, the capacity for continuous audit and feedback is also advocated.

     

  • Among patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy who are not in a PCI-capable hospital, early or immediate transfer to a PCI-capable hospital for angiography, and PCI if indicated, within 24 hours is recommended.37 GRADE: Weak; Level: IIA

  • Among patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, for those with ≤ 50% ST recovery at 60–90 minutes and/or with haemodynamic instability, immediate transfer for angiography with a view to rescue angioplasty is recommended.38 GRADE: Strong; Level: IB

    • PP: Hospital networks. Systems of care should be developed to provide advice and enable, when appropriate, immediate or early transfer for angiography of patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy who are not in a PCI-capable hospital.

     

  • Among high and very high risk patients with NSTEACS (except type 2 MI [secondary to ischaemia due to either increased oxygen demand or decreased supply]), a strategy of angiography with coronary revascularisation (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), where appropriate, is recommended.39 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Mode of revascularisation. Patient comorbidities, fitness for major surgery and coronary anatomy are the main determinants. Urgent revascularisation with CABG may be indicated for patients with failed PCI, cardiogenic shock or mechanical defects resulting from MI (eg, septal, papillary muscle or free-wall rupture). A combined Heart Team approach may provide the best consensus decision about the care of an individual patient.

    • PP: Invasive management for type 2 MI. Type 2 MI remains a challenging diagnosis, and no trials have examined the benefits of a routine invasive strategy in patients with type 2 MI. In the absence of any trial evidence, angiography with a view to revascularisation may be considered if there is ongoing ischaemia or haemodynamic compromise despite adequate treatment of the underlying acute medical problem that provoked the type 2 MI.

     

  • Patients with NSTEACS who have no recurrent symptoms and no risk criteria are considered at low risk of ischaemic events and can be managed with a selective invasive strategy guided by provocative testing for inducible ischaemia.39 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Very high risk patients: Among patients with NSTEACS with very high risk criteria (ongoing ischaemia, haemodynamic compromise, arrhythmias, mechanical complications of MI, acute heart failure, recurrent dynamic or widespread ST segment and/or T wave changes on ECG; Box 3), an immediate invasive strategy is recommended (ie, within 2 hours of admission).40 GRADE: Strong; Level: IIC

  • High risk patients: In the absence of very high risk criteria, for patients with NSTEACS with high risk criteria (GRACE score > 140, dynamic ST segment and/or T wave changes on ECG or rise and/or fall in troponin compatible with MI; Box 3), an early invasive strategy is recommended (ie, within 24 hours of admission).40 GRADE: Weak; Level: IC

  • Intermediate risk patients: In the absence of high risk criteria, for patients with NSTEACS with intermediate risk criteria (such as recurrent symptoms or substantial inducible ischaemia on provocative testing; Box 3), an invasive strategy is recommended (ie, within 72 hours of admission).40-42 GRADE: Weak; Level: IIC

 

Pharmacology for ACS

 

  • Aspirin 300 mg orally (dissolved or chewed) initially, followed by 100–150 mg/day, is recommended for all patients with ACS, in the absence of hypersensitivity.43 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Among patients with confirmed ACS at intermediate to very high risk of recurrent ischaemic events, use of a P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor 180 mg orally, then 90 mg twice a day; or prasugrel 60 mg orally, then 10 mg daily; or clopidogrel 300–600 mg orally, then 75 mg daily) is recommended in addition to aspirin (ticagrelor or prasugrel preferred; see below).44-47 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Choosing between P2Y12 inhibitors. Given their superior efficacy, ticagrelor and prasugrel are the preferred first-line P2Y12 inhibitors. Use of ticagrelor is advised for a broad spectrum of patients with STEMI or NSTEACS who are at intermediate to high risk of an ischaemic event, in the absence of atrioventricular conduction disorders (second and third degree atrioventricular block) and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prasugrel may be considered for patients who have not received a P2Y12 antagonist and in whom PCI is planned, but it should not be used for patients > 75 years of age, of low bodyweight (< 60 kg) or with a history of transient ischaemic attack or stroke. Use of either prasugrel or ticagrelor, rather than clopidogrel, is also recommended for patients who have experienced recurrent events while taking clopidogrel or who have experienced stent thrombosis. Clopidogrel is recommended for patients who cannot receive ticagrelor or prasugrel, as an adjunctive agent with fibrinolytic therapy or for those requiring oral anticoagulation (refer to relevant prescribing information documentation). Ticagrelor or clopidogrel should be commenced soon after diagnosis, but due consideration should be given to ischaemic and bleeding risks, the likelihood of need for CABG (more likely in patients with extensive ECG changes, ongoing ischaemia or haemodynamic instability) and the delay to angiography. Prasugrel should be commenced immediately after diagnosis among patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI, or after the coronary anatomy is known among those undergoing urgent PCI. Initiation of prasugrel before coronary angiography outside the context of primary PCI is not recommended.

    • PP: Combination of P2Y12 inhibition with long term anticoagulation. Among patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation, a careful assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risks is required, using CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. The following advice is based on consensus opinion. In patients with a strong indication for long term anticoagulation (ie, mechanical heart valves, atrial fibrillation with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2), the anticoagulant should be continued at a reduced dose, and clopidogrel, rather than ticagrelor or prasugrel, should be used for these patients. The duration of triple therapy (ie, aspirin, clopidogrel and oral anticoagulation) should be determined by the bleeding risk.

     

  • Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in combination with heparin is recommended at the time of PCI among patients with high risk clinical and angiographic characteristics or for treating thrombotic complications among patients with ACS.48 GRADE: Strong; Level: IB

  • Either unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin is recommended in patients with ACS at intermediate to high risk of ischaemic events.49,50 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Choosing between indirect thrombin inhibitors. Enoxaparin may be preferred over unfractionated heparin as it does not require monitoring of partial thromboplastin time and is simpler to administer. Swapping between enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin has been shown to increase bleeding risk and is not recommended.

     

  • Bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg intravenously with 1.75 mg/kg/h infusion) may be considered as an alternative to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition and heparin among patients with ACS undergoing PCI with clinical features associated with an increased risk of bleeding events.51 GRADE: Weak; Level: IIB

 

Discharge management and secondary prevention

 

  • Aspirin (100–150 mg/day) should be continued indefinitely unless it is not tolerated or an indication for anticoagulation becomes apparent.43 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Clopidogrel should be prescribed if aspirin is contraindicated or not tolerated. GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) should be prescribed for up to 12 months in patients with ACS, regardless of whether coronary revascularisation was performed. The use of prasugrel for up to 12 months should be confined to patients receiving PCI. GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Consider continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 12 months if ischaemic risks outweigh the bleeding risk of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy; conversely, consider discontinuation if bleeding risk outweighs ischaemic risks.52 GRADE: Weak; Level: IIC

  • Initiate and continue indefinitely, the highest tolerated dose of an HMG-CoA (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A) reductase inhibitor (statin) for a patient following hospitalisation with ACS, unless contraindicated or there is a history of intolerance.53 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Target cholesterol levels. There is additional benefit from progressive lowering of cholesterol levels, with no apparent lower limit. Within the context of an individualised care plan, a target low density lipoprotein cholesterol level of less than 1.8 mmol/L is suggested in the first instance.

     

  • Initiate treatment with vasodilatory β-blockers in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%) unless contraindicated.54 GRADE: Strong; Level: IIA

  • Initiate and continue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin receptor blockers) in patients with evidence of heart failure, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, diabetes, anterior MI or co-existent hypertension.55 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

  • Attendance at cardiac rehabilitation or undertaking a structured secondary prevention service is recommended for all patients hospitalised with ACS.56,57 GRADE: Strong; Level: IA

    • PP: Individualisation of cardiac rehabilitation or secondary prevention service referral. A wide variety of prevention programs improve health outcomes in patients with coronary disease. After discharge from hospital, patients with ACS and, where appropriate, their companion(s) should be referred to an individualised preventive intervention according to their personal preference and values and the available resources. Services can be based in the hospital, primary care, the local community or the home.

     

 

System considerations

 

  • Continuous audit and feedback systems, integrated with work routines and patient flows, are strongly advocated to support quality assurance initiatives and provide data confirming continued, cost-efficient improvement in patient outcomes as a result of new innovations in care.

 

Box 1 – Timing of troponin testing

Timing of sampling

Strategy*

Assays


0 hour (single sample)

Patients whose pain and symptoms resolved 12 hours prior to testing (cut points are the assay-specific 99th percentile

Both sensitive and highly sensitive (HS) assays

0 hour (single sample)

Patients with value < LoD of the specific assay (not > 99th percentile cut point) and symptom onset > 3 hours15-17

HS assays

0 hour and 1 hour after presentation

Rule-in and rule-out AMI algorithms (cut points are assay-specific and not the 99th percentile)18-20

HS assays

0 and 2 hours after presentation

ADAPT protocol13

Sensitive assays

Modified ADAPT protocol12,21(cut points are the assay-specific 99th percentile)

HS assays

0 and ≥ 3 hours after presentation

Previous NHFA protocol7

HS assays

HEART Pathway22,23 (cut points are the assay-specific 99th percentile)

Both sensitive and HS assays

0 and ≥ 6–12 hours after presentation

Rule-in and rule-out AMI algorithms5 (cut points are the assay-specific 99th percentile)

Sensitive and point-of-care assays


ADAPT = 2-Hour Accelerated Diagnostic Protocol to Assess Patients with Chest Pain Symptoms Using Contemporary Troponins as the Only Biomarker. AMI = acute myocardial infarction. HEART = History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors and Troponin. LoD = limit of detection. NHFA = National Heart Foundation of Australia. * With concurrent clinical risk stratification. † Reports on the use and outcomes of the biomarker strategy in clinical practice are not currently available.

Box 2 – Risk classification for possible cardiac causes of chest pain


High risk

 

  • Ongoing or recurrent chest discomfort despite initial treatment
  • Elevated cardiac troponin level
  • New ischaemic changes on electrocardiogram (ECG), such as persistent or dynamic ECG changes of ST segment depression ≥ 0.5 mm; transient ST segment elevation (≥ 0.5 mm) or new T wave inversion ≥ 2 mm in more than two contiguous leads; or ECG criteria consistent with Wellens syndrome
  • Diaphoresis
  • Haemodynamic compromise — systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, cool peripheries, Killip Class > I and/or new onset mitral regurgitation
  • Sustained ventricular tachycardia
  • Syncope
  • Known left ventricular systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%)
  • Prior acute myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting

 

Low risk

 

  • Age < 40 years
  • Symptoms atypical for angina
  • Remain symptom free
  • Absence of known coronary artery disease
  • Normal troponin level
  • Normal ECG

 

Intermediate risk

 

  • Neither high risk nor low risk criteria

 


 

Box 3 – Markers of increased risk of mortality and recurrent events among patients with confirmed acute coronary syndrome

Risk classification

Clinical characteristic


Very high

 

  • Haemodynamic instability, heart failure, cardiogenic shock or mechanical complications of myocardial infarction (MI)
  • Life-threatening arrhythmias or cardiac arrest
  • Recurrent or ongoing ischaemia (ie, chest pain refractory to medical treatment) or recurrent dynamic ST segment and/or T wave changes, particularly with intermittent ST segment elevation, de Winter T wave changes or Wellens syndrome, or widespread ST segment elevation in two coronary territories

 

High

 

  • Rise and/or fall in troponin level consistent with MI
  • Dynamic ST segment and/or T wave changes with or without symptoms
  • GRACE score > 140

 

Intermediate

 

  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Renal insufficiency (glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)
  • Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%
  • Prior revascularisation: percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting
  • GRACE score > 109 and < 140

 


GRACE = Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events.


Provenance: Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

  • Derek P Chew1
  • Ian A Scott2,3
  • Louise Cullen4,5
  • John K French6
  • Tom G Briffa7
  • Philip A Tideman8
  • Stephen Woodruffe9
  • Alistair Kerr10
  • Maree Branagan11
  • Philip EG Aylward12

  • 1 Department of Cardiology, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA
  • 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD
  • 3 School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
  • 4 Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, Brisbane, QLD
  • 5 Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD
  • 6 Coronary Care and Cardiovascular Research, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW
  • 7 School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA
  • 8 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA
  • 9 Ipswich Cardiac Rehabilitation and Heart Failure Service, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, QLD
  • 10 Cardiomyopathy Association of Australia, Melbourne, VIC
  • 11 National Heart Foundation of Australia, Melbourne, VIC
  • 12 Cardiology Department, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA

Correspondence: Derek.Chew@flinders.edu.au

Acknowledgements: 

We acknowledge the following for their contribution to the development of the NHFA/CSANZ ACS guideline 2016: David Brieger (New South Wales), Karen Sanders (Victoria), David Sullivan (NSW), Ross White (NSW), Andrew Newcomb (Vic), Richard (Rick) Harper (Vic), Yusuf Nagree (Western Australia), Lachlan Parker (Queensland), Harvey White (New Zealand), Sue Sanderson (Tasmania), Clara Chow (NSW), Ross Proctor (NSW), Jinty Wilson (Vic), Anne-Maree Kelly (Vic) and Con Aroney (Qld).

Competing interests:

The competing interests declared by the authors of the full ACS guideline are included in the guideline available at http://heartfoundation.org.au/for-professionals/clinical-information/acute-coronary-syndromes.

  • 1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Acute coronary syndromes clinical care standard. Sydney: ACSQHC, 2014. http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/clinical-care-standards/acute-coronary-syndromes-clinical-care-standard (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 2. National Heart Foundation of Australia. Australian acute coronary syndromes capability framework. Melbourne: NHFA, 2015. https://heartfoundation.org.au/for-professionals/clinical-information/acute-coronary-syndromes (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 3. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Canberra: NHMRC, 2009. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/developers/nhmrc_levels_grades_evidence_120423.pdf (accessed Mar 2016).
  • 4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926.
  • 5. Acute Coronary Syndrome Guidelines Working Group. Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2006. Med J Aust 2006; 184 (8 Suppl): S1-S32. <MJA full text>
  • 6. Aroney CN, Aylward P, Chew DP, et al; National Heart Foundation of Australia/Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. 2007 addendum to the National Heart Foundation of Australia/Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2006. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 302-303. <MJA full text>
  • 7. Chew DP, Aroney CN, Aylward PE, et al. 2011 Addendum to the National Heart Foundation of Australia/Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) 2006. Heart Lung Circ 2011; 20: 487-502.
  • 8. Diercks DB, Peacock WF, Hiestand BC, et al. Frequency and consequences of recording an electrocardiogram >10 minutes after arrival in an emergency room in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (from the CRUSADE Initiative). Am J Cardiol 2006; 97: 437-442.
  • 9. Cabello JB, Burls A, Emparanza JI, et al. Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (8): CD007160.
  • 10. Stub D, Smith K, Bernard S, et al. Air versus oxygen in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2015; 131: 2143-2150.
  • 11. Cullen L, Greenslade J, Hammett CJ, et al. Comparison of three risk stratification rules for predicting patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting to an Australian emergency department. Heart Lung Circ 2013; 22: 844-851.
  • 12. Cullen L, Mueller C, Parsonage WA, et al. Validation of high-sensitivity troponin I in a 2-hour diagnostic strategy to assess 30-day outcomes in emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 1242-1249.
  • 13. Than M, Cullen L, Aldous S, et al. 2-Hour accelerated diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms using contemporary troponins as the only biomarker: the ADAPT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2091-2098.
  • 14. Reichlin T, Hochholzer W, Bassetti S, et al. Early diagnosis of myocardial infarction with sensitive cardiac troponin assays. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 858-867.
  • 15. Body R, Burrows G, Carley S, et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin t concentrations below the limit of detection to exclude acute myocardial infarction: a prospective evaluation. Clin Chem 2015; 61: 983-989.
  • 16. Body R, Burrows G, Carley S, Lewis PS. Rapid exclusion of acute myocardial infarction in patients with undetectable troponin using a sensitive troponin I assay. Ann Clin Biochem 2015; 52: 543-549.
  • 17. Shah AS, Anand A, Sandoval Y, et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I at presentation in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome: a cohort study. Lancet 2015; 386: 2481-2488.
  • 18. Reichlin T, Twerenbold R, Wildi K, et al. Prospective validation of a 1-hour algorithm to rule-out and rule-in acute myocardial infarction using a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T assay. CMAJ 2015; 187: E243-E252.
  • 19. Rubini Gimenez MT, Twerenbold R, Jaeger C, et al. One-hour rule-in and rule-out of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I. Am J Med 2015; 128: 861-870.e4.
  • 20. Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 1211-1218.
  • 21. Aldous S, Pemberton C, Richards AM, et al. High-sensitivity troponin T for early rule-out of myocardial infarction in recent onset chest pain. Emerg Med J 2012; 29: 805-810.
  • 22. Mahler SA, Riley RF, Hiestand BC, et al. The HEART Pathway randomized trial: identifying emergency department patients with acute chest pain for early discharge. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2015; 8: 195-203.
  • 23. Mahler SA, Miller CD, Hollander JE, et al. Identifying patients for early discharge: performance of decision rules among patients with acute chest pain. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168: 795-802.
  • 24. Reichlin T, Cullen L, Parsonage WA, et al. Two-hour algorithm for triage toward rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Am J Med 2015; 128: 369-379.
  • 25. Mueller C, Giannitsis E, Christ M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a 0-hour/1-hour algorithm in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 68: 76-87.e4.
  • 26. Cullen L, Greenslade J, Merollini K, et al. Cost and outcomes of assessing patients with chest pain in an Australian emergency department. Med J Aust 2015; 202: 427-432. <MJA full text>
  • 27. Stein RA, Chaitman BR, Balady GJ, et al. Safety and utility of exercise testing in emergency room chest pain centers: an advisory from the Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention, Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association. Circulation 2000; 102: 1463-1467.
  • 28. Chew DP, Junbo G, Parsonage W, et al. Perceived risk of ischemic and bleeding events in acute coronary syndromes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 6: 299-308.
  • 29. Scott IA, Derhy PH, O’Kane D, et al. Discordance between level of risk and intensity of evidence-based treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 153-159. <MJA full text>
  • 30. Yan RT, Yan AT, Tan M, et al. Underuse of evidence-based treatment partly explains the worse clinical outcome in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2006; 152: 676-683.
  • 31. Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY, et al. Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation 2009; 119: 1873-1882.
  • 32. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994; 343: 311-322.
  • 33. Boersma E, Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs. Thrombolysis Group. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 779-788.
  • 34. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003; 361: 13-20.
  • 35. De Luca G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Marino P. Transferring patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction for mechanical reperfusion: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 52: 665-676.
  • 36. Pinto DS, Frederick PD, Chakrabarti AK, et al. Benefit of transferring ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients for percutaneous coronary intervention compared with administration of onsite fibrinolytic declines as delays increase. Circulation 2011; 124: 2512-2521.
  • 37. Borgia F, Goodman SG, Halvorsen S, et al. Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2156-2169.
  • 38. Wijeysundera HC, Vijayaraghavan R, Nallamothu BK, et al. Rescue angioplasty or repeat fibrinolysis after failed fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 422-430.
  • 39. Hoenig MR, Aroney CN, Scott IA. Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (3): CD004815.
  • 40. Navarese EP, Gurbel PA, Andreotti F, et al. Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 261-270.
  • 41. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2165-2175.
  • 42. Navarese EP, de Servi S, Gibson CM, et al. Early vs. delayed invasive strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. QJM 2011; 104: 193-200.
  • 43. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002; 324: 71-86.
  • 44. Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, et al. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 494-502.
  • 45. Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al. Effect of clopidogrel pretreatment before percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytics: the PCI-CLARITY study. JAMA 2005; 294: 1224-1232.
  • 46. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
  • 47. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
  • 48. Bosch X, Marrugat J, Sanchis J. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers during percutaneous coronary intervention and as the initial medical treatment of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (11): CD002130.
  • 49. Andrade-Castellanos CA, Colunga-Lozano LE, Delgado-Figueroa N, Magee K. Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (6): CD003462.
  • 50. Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM, et al. Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292: 45-54.
  • 51. Cavender MA, Sabatine MS. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 384: 599-606.
  • 52. Udell JA, Bonaca MP, Collet JP, et al. Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in the subgroup of patients with previous myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 390-399.
  • 53. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaborators, Mihaylova B, Emberson J, et al. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012; 380: 581-590.
  • 54. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P, et al. Beta blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis. BMJ 1999; 318: 1730-1737.
  • 55. Dagenais GR, Pogue J, Fox K, et al Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in stable vascular disease without left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure: a combined analysis of three trials. Lancet 2006; 368: 581-588.
  • 56. Fletcher GF, Ades PA, Kligfield P, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2013; 128: 873-934.
  • 57. Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson DR, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 1-12.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.