Abstract P240: Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Takotsubo’s Cardiomyopathy Who Have Undergone Cardiac Catherterization at Presentation vs. Those Who Have Not: A Two Community Based Hospitals Experience

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of Takotsubo’s Cardiomyopathy (TC) remains a challenge due to similar presentation to acute coronary syndrome. Coronary catheterization (CC) proven clean coronaries is important to diagnose TC. However, it is not uncommon that CC is occasionally delayed due to unstable medical condition and/or high risk for CC. We hypothesized that patients with TC had similar outcomes whether they underwent CC at presentation or were diagnosed using non-invasive imaging techniques. Methods: Retrospective chart review of data from Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and Kent Hospital, two community based hospitals, from June 2008 to March 2016 was done. Thirty nine adult patients > 18 years of age admitted to the intensive care unit or medical floor with chest pain, shortness of breath, elevated troponin, EKG changes, and new non-regional wall motion abnormalities or reduce ejection fraction, with suspected TC were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on diagnostic approach of TC: Baseline echo findings suggestive of TC with EF improvement at follow up (non-CC) vs. clean coronaries by CC. Outcomes of the two groups were compared using Chi-square analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Mann-Whitney Test appropriately. Results: Out of 39 patients, 20 underwent CC while 19 did not. Mean age was not different between the 2 groups (69.1±11.8 vs. 62.4±14.0, p= NS) but CC group had more females (95 %, 19 of 20 vs 68.4%, 13 of 19; p=0.031). Most common chief complaint at the time of admission in both groups was shortness of breath (60.0%, 12 of 20 vs 68.4%, 13 of 19; p=0.548). Admission heart rate was significantly higher in non-CC vs. CC patients (102.3± 19.3 vs 85.4±85.4; p=0.007). Third troponin was higher in non-CC group (1.926 ± 2.667 vs 0.775± 1.378, p=0.017). All other admission and in-hospital findings and drug management in both groups were similar. Both CC and non-CC groups had comparable outcomes: intubation (15%, 3 of 20 vs 21.1%, 4 of 19) , heart failure (21.2 %, 4 of 20 vs 15.8%, 3 of 19), shock (0 %, 0 of 20 vs 5.3% 1 of 19 ), stroke (5 %, 1 of 20 vs 0%, 0 of 19), death (5.3 % 1 of 20 vs 5.3% 1 of 19 ), recovery (65%,13 of 20 vs 52.9 % 10 of 19) p=NS for all. ICU admission (42.1%, 8 of 20 vs 52.6%, 10 of 19; p=NS) and length of stay (8.21±7.82 days vs 5.75±5.67 days; p=NS) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Both groups showed analogous improvement in ejection fraction (21.92 ± 13.96 vs 20.63 ± 13.21; p= 0.835) on a follow up Echo done within 2 weeks to 6 months. Conclusion: This study shows no difference in outcomes between TC patients diagnosed with CC or TTE on admission. However, CC should still be done on admission for diagnosis of TC until large non-invasive diagnostic imaging modalities (such as myocardial perfusion echocardiogram) trials show high specificity for diagnosis of TC.