Impact of diabetes in patients waiting for invasive cardiac procedures during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, elective invasive cardiac procedures (ICP) have been frequently cancelled or postponed. Consequences may be more evident in patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the peculiarities of patients with DM among those in whom ICP were cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to identify subgroups in which the influence of DM has higher impact on the clinical outcome. METHODS: We included 2,158 patients in whom an elective ICP was cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic in 37 hospitals in Spain. Among them, 700 (32.4%) were diabetics. Patients with and without diabetes were compared. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes were older and had a higher prevalence of other cardiovascular risk factors, previous cardiovascular history and co-morbidities. Diabetics had a higher mortality (3.0% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (1.9% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.001). Differences were especially important in patients with valvular heart disease (mortality 6.9% vs 1.7% [p < 0.001] and cardiovascular mortality 4.9% vs 0.9% [p = 0.002] in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). In the multivariable analysis, diabetes remained as an independent risk factor both for overall and cardiovascular mortality. No significant interaction was found with other clinical variables. CONCLUSION: Among patients in whom an elective invasive cardiac procedure is cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic, mortality and cardiovascular mortality is higher in patients with diabetes, irrespectively on other clinical conditions. These procedures should not be cancelled in patients with diabetes.

Consequences of canceling elective invasive cardiac procedures during Covid-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, elective procedures were canceled or postponed, mainly due to health care systems overwhelming. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences of interrupting invasive procedures in patients with chronic cardiac diseases due to the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. METHODS: The study population is comprised of 2,158 patients that were pending on elective cardiac invasive procedures in 37 hospitals in Spain on the 14th of March 2020, when a state of alarm and subsequent lockdown was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These patients were followed-up until April 31th. RESULTS: Out of the 2,158 patients, 36 (1.7%) died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients pending on structural procedures (4.5% vs. 0.8%, respectively; p < .001), in those >80 year-old (5.1% vs. 0.7%, p < .001), and in presence of diabetes (2.7% vs. 0.9%, p = .001), hypertension (2.0% vs. 0.6%, p = .014), hypercholesterolemia (2.0% vs. 0.9%, p = .026) [Correction added on December 23, 2020, after first online publication: as per Dr. Moreno's request changes in p-values were made after original publication in Abstract.], chronic renal failure (6.0% vs. 1.2%, p < .001), NYHA > II (3.8% vs. 1.2%, p = .001), and CCS > II (4.2% vs. 1.4%, p = .013), whereas was it was significantly lower in smokers (0.5% vs. 1.9%, p = .013). Multivariable analysis identified age > 80, diabetes, renal failure and CCS > II as independent predictors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Mortality at 45 days during COVID-19 outbreak in patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases included in a waiting list due to cancellation of invasive elective procedures was 1.7%. Some clinical characteristics may be of help in patient selection for being promptly treated when similar situations happen in the future.

[Impact of COVID-19 on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care. The Spanish experience]. / Impacto de la COVID-19 en el tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST. La experiencia española.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. RESULTS: Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.

Impact of COVID-19 on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care. The Spanish experience.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. RESULTS: Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P<.001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P <.001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P=.017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.

Puncture Versus Surgical Cutdown Complications of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation (from the Spanish TAVI Registry).

Vascular complications in transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transfemoral approach are related to higher mortality. Complete percutaneous approach is currently the preferred technique for vascular access. However, some centers still perform surgical cutdown. Our purpose was to determine complications related to vascular access technique in the population of the Spanish TAVI National Registry. From January 2010 to July 2015, 3,046 patients were included in this Registry. Of them, 2,465 underwent transfemoral approach and were treated with either surgical cutdown and closure (cutdown group, n = 632) or percutaneous approach (puncture group, n = 1,833). Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions were used to assess vascular and bleeding complications. Propensity matching resulted in 615 matched pairs. Overall, 30-day vascular complications were significantly higher in the puncture group (109 [18%] vs 42 [6.9%]; relative risk [RR] 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85 to 3.64, p <0.001) due mostly by minor vascular events (89 [15%] vs 25 [4.1%], RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.32 to 5.47, p <0.001). Bleeding rates were lower in the puncture group (18 [3%] vs 40 [6.6%], RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, p = 0.003) mainly driven by major bleeding (9 [1.5%] vs 21 [3.4%], RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93, p = 0.03). At a mean follow-up of 323 days, complication rates remained significantly different between groups (minor vascular complications 90 [15%] vs 31 [5.1%], hazard ratio 2.99, 95% CI 1.99 to 4.50, p <0.001 and major bleeding 10 [1.6%] vs 21 [3.4%], hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.0, p = 0.04, puncture versus cutdown group, respectively). In conclusion, percutaneous approach yielded higher rates of minor vascular complications but lower rates of major bleeding compared with the surgical cutdown, both at 30-day and at mid-term follow-up in our population.