Outcomes of radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess one-year outcomes in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by catheter ablation. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted of consecutive patients referred for catheter ablation of persistent or long-standing persistent AF between May 2016 and October 2018. Patients underwent two different ablation strategies: pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) (from May 2016 to June 2017) or a tailored approach (from July 2017 to October 2018). The overall recurrence rate at one year was analyzed. The secondary endpoint was arrhythmia recurrence according to the type of AF (persistent vs. long-standing persistent AF) and according to the ablation strategy employed. RESULTS: During the study period, 67 patients were included (40% with long-standing persistent AF). During a mean follow-up of 16±6 months, 27% of the patients had arrhythmia recurrence. Patients with long-standing persistent AF had a higher recurrence rate than those with persistent AF (44.4% vs. 15%, p=0.006), while patients who underwent a tailored approach presented better outcomes than those undergoing PVI plus CFAE ablation (17.5% vs. 40.7%, p=0.024). Ablation strategy (HR 6.457 [1.399-29.811], p=0.017), time in continuous AF (HR 1.191 [1.043-1.259], p=0.010) and left atrial volume index (HR 1.160 [1.054-1.276], p=0.002) were independent predictors of arrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF. Patients with persistent AF and those undergoing a tailored approach presented lower arrhythmia recurrence.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ST-elevation myocardial infarction admissions and outcomes in a Portuguese primary percutaneous coronary intervention center: Preliminary Data.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant changes in healthcare systems and its impact on the treatment of cardiovascular conditions, such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), is unknown in countries where the healthcare systems were not saturated, as was the case in Portugal. As such, we aimed to assess the effect on STEMI admissions and outcomes in Portuguese centers. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective study including all patients admitted to our hospital due to STEMI between the date of the first SARS-CoV-2 case diagnosed in Portugal and the end of the state of emergency (March and April 2020). Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed and compared with the same period of 2019. RESULTS: A total of 104 STEMI patients were assessed, 55 in 2019 and 49 in 2020 (-11%). There were no significant differences between groups regarding age (62±12 vs. 65±14 years, p=0.308), gender (84.8% vs. 77.6% males, p=0.295) or comorbidities. In the 2020 group, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients transported to the hospital in pre-hospital emergency medical transportation (38.2% vs. 20.4%, p=0.038), an increase in system delay (49 [30-110.25] vs. 140 [90-180] minutes, p=0.019), a higher Killip-Kimball class, with a decrease in class I (74.5% vs. 51%) and an increase in class III (1.8% vs. 8.2%) and IV (5.5% vs. 18.4%) (p=0.038), a greater incidence of vasoactive support (3.7% vs. 26.5%, p=0.001), invasive mechanic ventilation usage (3.6% vs. 14.3%, p=0.056), and an increase in severe left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge (3.6% vs. 16.3%, p=0.03). In-hospital mortality was 14.3% in the 2020 group and 7.3% in the 2019 group p=0.200). CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of significant variation in the absolute number of STEMI admissions, there was an increase in STEMI clinical severity and significantly worse outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. An increase in system delay, impaired pre-hospital care and patient fear of in-hospital infection can partially justify these results and should be the target of future actions in further waves of the pandemic.

INTRODUÇÃO: A doença por coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) originou alterações significativas nos sistemas de saúde e a sua influência no tratamento da patologia cardiovascular, como no caso do enfarte agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (EAMcSST), é desconhecida em países onde não ocorreu saturação da capacidade dos sistemas de saúde, como é o caso de Portugal. Assim, o nosso objetivo foi determinar o efeito nas admissões por EAMcSST e no seu prognóstico intra-hospitalar na região Centro de Portugal. MÉTODOS: Realizou-se um estudo unicêntrico, observacional e retrospetivo, incluindo todos os doentes admitidos no nosso hospital por EAMcSST entre a data do primeiro caso de SARS-CoV-2 em Portugal e o término do estado de emergência (março e abril de 2020). Foram avaliadas as características e os resultados dos doentes e foi realizada uma comparação com o período homólogo de 2019. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 104 doentes com EAMcSST, 55 em 2019 e 49 em 2020 (-11%). Não se verificaram diferenças significativas entre os grupos relativamente à idade (62±12 versus 65±14 anos, p=0,308), género (84,8% mulheres versus 77,6% homens, p=0,295) ou comorbilidades. No grupo de doentes de 2020 verificou-se uma diminuição significativa na proporção de doentes transportados para o hospital pela viatura médica do Instituto Nacional de Emergência Médica (38,2% versus 20,4%, p=0,038), um aumento no atraso do sistema de saúde (49 [30-110,25] versus 140 [90-180] minutos, p=0,019), uma maior classe Killip-Kimball, com uma redução de doentes em classe I (74,5% versus 51%) e um aumento na classe III (1,8% versus 8,2%) e IV (5,5% versus 18,4%) (p=0,038), uma maior incidência de suporte vasoativo (3,7% versus 26,5%, p=0,001), de ventilação mecânica invasiva (3,6% versus 14,3%, p=0,056) e um aumento da proporção de doentes com disfunção ventricular esquerda grave na alta hospitalar (3,6% versus 16,3%, p=0,03). A mortalidade intra-hospitalar foi de 14,3% no grupo de 2020 e de 7,3% no grupo de 2019 (p=0,200). CONCLUSÃO: Apesar de não se ter verificado uma variação significativa no número de admissões por EAMcSST, existiu um aumento da gravidade, com um prognóstico intra-hospitalar significativamente mais adverso durante a pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Um aumento no atraso do sistema de saúde, um compromisso nos serviços pré-hospitalares e o receio por parte dos doentes de contraírem uma eventual infeção hospitalar podem justificar parcialmente estes resultados e devem ser planeadas ações para diminuir o seu efeito em novos surtos pandémicos.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ST-elevation myocardial infarction admissions and outcomes in a Portuguese primary percutaneous coronary intervention center: Preliminary Data.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to significant changes in healthcare systems and its impact on the treatment of cardiovascular conditions, such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), is unknown in countries where the healthcare systems were not saturated, as was the case in Portugal. As such, we aimed to assess the effect on STEMI admissions and outcomes in Portuguese centers. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective study including all patients admitted to our hospital due to STEMI between the date of the first SARS-CoV-2 case diagnosed in Portugal and the end of the state of emergency (March and April 2020). Patient characteristics and outcomes were assessed and compared with the same period of 2019. RESULTS: A total of 104 STEMI patients were assessed, 55 in 2019 and 49 in 2020 (-11%). There were no significant differences between groups regarding age (62±12 vs. 65±14 years, p=0.308), gender (84.8% vs. 77.6% males, p=0.295) or comorbidities. In the 2020 group, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients transported to the hospital in pre-hospital emergency medical transportation (38.2% vs. 20.4%, p=0.038), an increase in system delay (49 [30-110.25] vs. 140 [90-180] minutes, p=0.019), a higher Killip-Kimball class, with a decrease in class I (74.5% vs. 51%) and an increase in class III (1.8% vs. 8.2%) and IV (5.5% vs. 18.4%) (p=0.038), a greater incidence of vasoactive support (3.7% vs. 26.5%, p=0.001), invasive mechanic ventilation usage (3.6% vs. 14.3%, p=0.056), and an increase in severe left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge (3.6% vs. 16.3%, p=0.03). In-hospital mortality was 14.3% in the 2020 group and 7.3% in the 2019 group p=0.200). CONCLUSION: Despite a lack of significant variation in the absolute number of STEMI admissions, there was an increase in STEMI clinical severity and significantly worse outcomes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. An increase in system delay, impaired pre-hospital care and patient fear of in-hospital infection can partially justify these results and should be the target of future actions in further waves of the pandemic.