Management and outcomes of myocardial infarction in people with impaired kidney function in England.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes significant mortality and morbidity in people with impaired kidney function. Previous observational research has demonstrated reduced use of invasive management strategies and inferior outcomes in this population. Studies from the USA have suggested that disparities in care have reduced over time. It is unclear whether these findings extend to Europe and the UK. METHODS: Linked data from four national healthcare datasets were used to investigate management and outcomes of AMI by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) category in England. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models compared management strategies and outcomes by eGFR category among people with kidney impairment hospitalised for AMI between 2015-2017. RESULTS: In a cohort of 5 835 people, we found reduced odds of invasive management in people with eGFR < 60mls/min/1.73m2 compared with people with eGFR ≥ 60 when hospitalised for non-ST segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). The association between eGFR and odds of invasive management for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) varied depending on the availability of percutaneous coronary intervention. A graded association between mortality and eGFR category was demonstrated both in-hospital and after discharge for all people. CONCLUSIONS: In England, patients with reduced eGFR are less likely to receive invasive management compared to those with preserved eGFR. Disparities in care may however be decreasing over time, with the least difference seen in patients with STEMI managed via the primary percutaneous coronary intervention pathway. Reduced eGFR continues to be associated with worse outcomes after AMI.

Impact of a Prior Cancer Diagnosis on Quality of Care and Survival Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in England.

BACKGROUND: An increasing proportion of patients with cancer experience acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated differences in quality of AMI care and survival between patients with and without previous cancer diagnoses. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using Virtual Cardio-Oncology Research Initiative data. Patients aged 40+ years hospitalized in England with AMI between January 2010 and March 2018 were assessed, ascertaining previous cancers diagnosed within 15 years. Multivariable regression was used to assess effects of cancer diagnosis, time, stage, and site on international quality indicators and mortality. RESULTS: Of 512 388 patients with AMI (mean age, 69.3 years; 33.5% women), 42 187 (8.2%) had previous cancers. Patients with cancer had significantly lower use of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (mean percentage point decrease [mppd], 2.6% [95% CI, 1.8-3.4]) and lower overall composite care (mppd, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.9-1.6]). Poorer quality indicator attainment was observed in patients with cancer diagnosed in the last year (mppd, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.8-1.0]), with later stage disease (mppd, 2.5% [95% CI, 3.3-1.4]), and with lung cancer (mppd, 2.2% [95% CI, 3.0-1.3]). Twelve-month all-cause survival was 90.5% in noncancer controls and 86.3% in adjusted counterfactual controls. Differences in post-AMI survival were driven by cancer-related deaths. Modeling improving quality indicator attainment to noncancer patient levels showed modest 12-month survival benefits (lung cancer, 0.6%; other cancers, 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of quality of AMI care are poorer in patients with cancer, with lower use of secondary prevention medications. Findings are primarily driven by differences in age and comorbidities between cancer and noncancer populations and attenuated after adjustment. The largest impact was observed in recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) and lung cancer. Further investigation will determine whether differences reflect appropriate management according to cancer prognosis or whether opportunities to improve AMI outcomes in patients with cancer exist.

Acute heart failure presentation, management, and outcomes in cancer patients: a national longitudinal study.

AIMS: Currently, little evidence exists on survival and quality of care in cancer patients presenting with acute heart failure (HF). The aim of the study is to investigate the presentation and outcomes of hospital admission with acute HF in a national cohort of patients with prior cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study identified 221 953 patients admitted to a hospital in England for HF during 2012-2018 (12 867 with a breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer diagnosis in the previous 10 years). We examined the impact of cancer on (i) HF presentation and in-hospital mortality, (ii) place of care, (iii) HF medication prescribing, and (iv) post-discharge survival, using propensity score weighting and model-based adjustment. Heart failure presentation was similar between cancer and non-cancer patients. A lower percentage of patients with prior cancer were cared for in a cardiology ward [-2.4% age point difference (ppd) (95% CI -3.3, -1.6)] or were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists (ACEi/ARB) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [-2.1 ppd (-3.3, -0.9)] than non-cancer patients. Survival after HF discharge was poor with median survival of 1.6 years in prior cancer and 2.6 years in non-cancer patients. Mortality in prior cancer patients was driven primarily by non-cancer causes (68% of post-discharge deaths). CONCLUSION: Survival in prior cancer patients presenting with acute HF was poor, with a significant proportion due to non-cancer causes of death. Despite this, cardiologists were less likely to manage cancer patients with HF. Cancer patients who develop HF were less likely to be prescribed guideline-based HF medications compared with non-cancer patients. This was particularly driven by patients with a poorer cancer prognosis.

Sex-specific evaluation and redevelopment of the GRACE score in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in populations from the UK and Switzerland: a multinational analysis with external cohort validation.

BACKGROUND: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score was developed and validated in predominantly male patient populations. We aimed to assess its sex-specific performance in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and to develop an improved score (GRACE 3.0) that accounts for sex differences in disease characteristics. METHODS: We evaluated the GRACE 2.0 score in 420 781 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS in contemporary nationwide cohorts from the UK and Switzerland. Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality were informed by the GRACE variables and developed in sex-disaggregated data from 386 591 patients from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (split into a training cohort of 309 083 [80·0%] patients and a validation cohort of 77 508 [20·0%] patients). External validation of the GRACE 3.0 score was done in 20 727 patients from Switzerland. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Aug 27, 2020, 400 054 patients with NSTE-ACS in the UK and 20 727 patients with NSTE-ACS in Switzerland were included in the study. Discrimination of in-hospital death by the GRACE 2.0 score was good in male patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86, 95% CI 0·86-0·86) and notably lower in female patients (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·82; p<0·0001). The GRACE 2.0 score underestimated in-hospital mortality risk in female patients, favouring their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not indicate early invasive treatment. Accounting for sex differences, GRACE 3.0 showed superior discrimination and good calibration with an AUC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·89-0·92) in male patients and 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·89) in female patients in an external cohort validation. GRACE 3·0 led to a clinically relevant reclassification of female patients to the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: The GRACE 2.0 score has limited discriminatory performance and underestimates in-hospital mortality in female patients with NSTE-ACS. The GRACE 3.0 score performs better in men and women and reduces sex inequalities in risk stratification. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Lindenhof Foundation, Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and Theodor-Ida-Herzog-Egli Foundation.

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Potentially Curable Malignancies: A National Registry Dataset Analysis.

Background: Although a common challenge for patients and clinicians, there is little population-level evidence on the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals diagnosed with potentially curable cancer. Objectives: We investigated CVD rates in patients with common potentially curable malignancies and evaluated the associations between patient and disease characteristics and CVD prevalence. Methods: The study included cancer registry patients diagnosed in England with stage I to III breast cancer, stage I to III colon or rectal cancer, stage I to III prostate cancer, stage I to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer, stage I to IV diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and stage I to IV Hodgkin lymphoma from 2013 to 2018. Linked hospital records and national CVD databases were used to identify CVD. The rates of CVD were investigated according to tumor type, and associations between patient and disease characteristics and CVD prevalence were determined. Results: Among the 634,240 patients included, 102,834 (16.2%) had prior CVD. Men, older patients, and those living in deprived areas had higher CVD rates. Prevalence was highest for non-small-cell lung cancer (36.1%) and lowest for breast cancer (7.7%). After adjustment for age, sex, the income domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and Charlson comorbidity index, CVD remained higher in other tumor types compared to breast cancer patients. Conclusions: There is a significant overlap between cancer and CVD burden. It is essential to consider CVD when evaluating national and international treatment patterns and cancer outcomes.

Impact of chronic kidney disease on case ascertainment for hospitalised acute myocardial infarction: an English cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) case ascertainment improves for the UK general population using linked health data sets. Because care pathways for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) change based on disease severity, AMI case ascertainment for these people may differ compared with the general population. We aimed to determine the association between CKD severity and AMI case ascertainment in two secondary care data sets, and the agreement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the same data sets. METHODS: We used a cohort study design. Primary care records for people with CKD or risk factors for CKD, identified using the National CKD Audit (2015-2017), were linked to the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP, 2007-2017) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES, 2007-2017) secondary care registries. People with an AMI recorded in either MINAP, HES or both were included in the study cohort. CKD status was defined using eGFR, derived from the most recent serum creatinine value recorded in primary care. Moderate-severe CKD was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and mild CKD or at risk of CKD was defined as eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR missing. CKD stages were grouped as (1) At risk of CKD and Stages 1-2 (eGFR missing or ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2), (2) Stage 3a (eGFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m2), (3) Stage 3b (eGFR 30-44 mL/min/1.73 m2) and (4) Stages 4-5 (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: We identified 6748 AMIs: 23% were recorded in both MINAP and HES, 66% in HES only and 11% in MINAP only. Compared with people at risk of CKD or with mild CKD, AMIs in people with moderate-severe CKD were more likely to be recorded in both MINAP and HES (42% vs 11%, respectively), or MINAP only (22% vs 5%), and less likely to be recorded in HES only (36% vs 84%). People with AMIs recorded in HES only or MINAP only had increased odds of death during hospitalisation compared with those recorded in both (adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.96 and OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.04, respectively). Agreement between eGFR at AMI admission (MINAP) and in primary care was poor (kappa (K) 0.42, SE 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: AMI case ascertainment is incomplete in both MINAP and HES, and is associated with CKD severity.

Ethnicity-dependent performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score for prediction of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in-hospital mortality: nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score was developed to evaluate risk in patients with the acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation. Little is known about its performance at predicting in-hospital mortality for ethnic minority patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 326 160 admissions with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in the Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP), 2010-17, including White (n = 299 184) and ethnic minorities (excluding White minorities) (n = 26 976). We calculated the GRACE score for in-hospital mortality and assessed ethnic group baseline characteristics by low, intermediate and high risk. The performance of the GRACE risk score was estimated by discrimination [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)] and calibration (calibration plots). Ethnic minorities presented younger and had increased prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors in all GRACE risk groups. The GRACE risk score for White [AUC 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.87] and ethnic minority (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-0.88) patients had good discrimination. However, whilst the GRACE risk model was well calibrated in White patients (expected to observed (E : O) in-hospital death rate ratio 0.99; slope 1.00), it overestimated risk in ethnic minority patients (E : O ratio 1.29; slope: 0.94). CONCLUSION: The GRACE risk score provided good discrimination overall for in-hospital mortality, but was not well calibrated and overestimated risk for ethnic minorities with NSTEMI.

Case-ascertainment of acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in cancer patients: a cohort study using English linked electronic health data.

AIMS: To assess the recording and accuracy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospital admissions between two electronic health record databases within an English cancer population over time and understand the factors that affect case-ascertainment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 112 502 hospital admissions for AMI in England 2010-2017 from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) disease registry and hospital episode statistics (HES) for 95 509 patients with a previous cancer diagnosis up to 15 years prior to admission. Cancer diagnoses were identified from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). We calculated the percentage of AMI admissions captured by each source and examined patient characteristics associated with source of ascertainment. Survival analysis assessed whether differences in survival between case-ascertainment sources could be explained by patient characteristics. A total of 57 265 (50.9%) AMI admissions in patients with a prior diagnosis of cancer were captured in both MINAP and HES. Patients captured in both sources were younger, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and had better prognosis, with lower mortality rates up to 9 years after AMI admission compared with patients captured in only one source. The percentage of admissions captured in both data sources improved over time. Cancer characteristics (site, stage, and grade) had little effect on how AMI was captured. CONCLUSION: MINAP and HES define different populations of patients with AMI. However, cancer characteristics do not substantially impact on case-ascertainment. These findings support a strategy of using multiple linked data sources for observational cardio-oncological research into AMI.

European Society of Cardiology methodology for the development of quality indicators for the quantification of cardiovascular care and outcomes.

AIMS: It is increasingly recognized that tools are required for assessing and benchmarking quality of care in order to improve it. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) is developing a suite of quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate cardiovascular care and support the delivery of evidence-based care. This paper describes the methodology used for their development. METHODS AND RESULTS: We propose a four-step process for the development of the ESC QIs. For a specific clinical area with a gap in care delivery, the QI development process includes: (i) the identification of key domains of care by constructing a conceptual framework of care; (ii) the construction of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature; (iii) the selection of a final set of QIs by obtaining expert opinions using the modified Delphi method; and (iv) the undertaking of a feasibility assessment by evaluating different ways of defining the QI specifications for the proposed data collection source. For each of the four steps, key methodological areas need to be addressed to inform the implementation process and avoid misinterpretation of the measurement results. CONCLUSION: Detailing the methodology for the ESC QIs construction enables healthcare providers to develop valid and feasible metrics to measure and improve the quality of cardiovascular care. As such, high-quality evidence may be translated into clinical practice and the 'evidence-practice' gap closed.

Comparison of an e-learning package with lecture-based teaching in the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT): a randomised controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the impact of an e-learning package with theoretical teaching on the ability of both graduate and undergraduate medical students to learn the management of supraventricular tachycardia. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, study at two Welsh medical schools. Participants were graduate-entry and undergraduate medical students, who were randomised (in a 1:1 ratio) to either 1 hour of training using an e-learning package or an hour of lecture-based teaching. The outcome was a comparison, within each group and between groups, of median scores achieved in assessments of knowledge through completion of preintervention, immediate post intervention and 2 weeks postintervention questionnaires. RESULTS: Of the 97 participants available for randomisation, 47 underwent teaching using the e-learning package and 50 were taught in the lecture group. Median scores were higher in the e-learning package group than the lecture group, though this difference was not statistically significant (4.00 vs 3.00; p=0.08) immediately after intervention. At 2 weeks post intervention, median scores in the e-learning package group were significantly higher than the median scores in the lecture group (4.00 vs 3.00; p=0.002). This was despite a subanalysis of the results demonstrating that subjects in the lecture group reported having seen more cases compared with those in the e-learning group (32 vs 13; p=0.002). Further, there was a significant fall in score over 2 weeks in the group receiving lecture-based teaching, but no such decrease in those using the e-learning package. CONCLUSION: E-learning seems to be the preferred method of learning and the method that confers longer retention time for both postgraduate and undergraduate medical students.

Ethnic disparities in care and outcomes of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: Little is known about ethnic disparities in care and clinical outcomes of patients admitted with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in national cohorts from universal healthcare systems derived from Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 280 588 admissions with NSTEMI in the UK Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP), 2010-2017, including White patients (n = 258 364) and Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) patients (n = 22 194). BAME patients were younger (66 years vs. 73 years, P < 0.001) and more frequently had hypertension (66% vs. 54%, P < 0.001), hypercholesterolaemia (49% vs. 34%, P < 0.001), and diabetes (48% vs. 24%, P < 0.001). BAME patients more frequently received invasive coronary angiography (80% vs. 68%, P < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52% vs. 43%, P < 0.001), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (9% vs. 7%, P < 0.001). Following propensity score matching, BAME compared with White patients had similar in-hospital all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.06; P = 0.23], major bleeding (OR 0.99, CI 0.75-1.25; P = 0.95), re-infarction (OR 1.15, CI 0.84-1.46; P = 0.34), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR 0.94, CI 0.80-1.07; P = 0.35). CONCLUSION: BAME patients with NSTEMI had higher cardiometabolic risk profiles and were more likely to undergo invasive angiography and revascularization, with similar clinical outcomes as those of their White counterparts. Among the quality indicators assessed, there is no evidence of care disparities among BAME patients presenting with NSTEMI.

Association of admitting physician specialty and care quality and outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI): insights from a national registry.

AIM: Little is known about the association between admitting physician specialty and care quality and outcomes for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 288 420 patients hospitalized with NSTEMI between 2010 and 2017 in the UK Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project database. The cohort was dichotomized according to care under a non-cardiologist (n = 146 722) and care under a cardiologist (n = 141 698) within the first 24 h of admission to hospital. Patients admitted under a cardiologist were significantly younger (70 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001), and less likely to be female (32% vs. 39%, P < 0.001). Independent factors associated with admission under a cardiologist included prior history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.07; P = 0.04], hypercholesterolaemia (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15-1.20; P < 0.001), hypertension (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P = 0.01), and admission to an interventional centre (OR 3.90, 95% CI 3.79-4.00; P < 0.001). Patients admitted under cardiology were more likely to receive optimal pharmacotherapy, undergo invasive coronary angiography (79% vs. 60%, P < 0.001), and receive revascularization in the form of PCI (52% vs. 36%, P < 0.001). Following propensity score matching, odds of in-hospital all-cause mortality (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.79-0.85; P < 0.001), re-infarction (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.91; P = 0.001), and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.78-0.84; P < 0.001) were lower in patients admitted under a cardiologist. CONCLUSION: Patients with NSTEMI admitted under a cardiologist within 24 h of hospital admission were more likely to receive guideline-directed management and had better clinical outcomes.

Effect of the Timing of Admission of Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome.

There is limited data regarding the impact of time of admission on clinical outcomes of out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated the patient characteristics, management, and outcomes of OHCA complicating AMI according to the time of admission. Patients admitted with a diagnosis of AMI and OHCA between 2010 and 2017 from the Myocardial Ischemia National Audit Project (MINAP) were studied. All patients were stratified into out-of-hours (OOH) and working hours (WH) cohort according to the time of hospital admission. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the predictors of clinical outcomes and treatment strategy. 16,118 patients were admitted with AMI and OHCA. The WH cohort consisted of 5,780 patients (35.9%) and OOH cohort consisted of 10,338 patients (64.1%). The OOH cohort was younger (OOH 64 vs WH 66 years, p <0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients had a final diagnosis of STEMI in OOH cohort (OOH 78.3% vs WH 76.6%, p = 0.012). Whilst the use of coronary angiography was lower in OOH (OOH 80.7% vs WH 82.5%, p = 0.005), PCI rates were similar (OOH 39.7% vs WH 40.5%, p = 0.4). Adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.07), re-infarction (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12) and bleeding (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12) were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, the majority of OHCA occurred out of working hours. However, the time of hospital admission didn't affect the rate of revascularization by PCI or clinical outcomes.

Effect of Location on Treatment and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction in England & Wales.

We investigated the incidence, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients according to cardiac arrest location. Patients admitted with a diagnosis of AMI between January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2017 from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) were studied. We used logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of the clinical outcomes and treatment strategy. The study population consisted of 580,796 patients admitted with AMI stratified into three groups: out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) (16,278[2.8%]), in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) (21,073[3.7%]), plus a reference group consisting of those without cardiac arrest (non-cardiac arrest (543,418[93.5%]). IHCA declined steadily (from 666 per 1000 in 2010 to 477 per 1000 AMI with cardiac arrest admissions in 2017) with a commensurate rise in OOHCA (from 344 per 1000 to 533 per 1000 AMI with cardiac arrest admissions). Coronary angiography utilization (OOHCA 81.1% vs IHCA 60.3% vs non-cardiac arrest 70.4%, p < 0.001) and PCI (OOHCA 40% vs IHCA 32.8% vs non-cardiac arrest 45.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in OOHCA. In-hospital mortality odds were greatest for IHCA (OR 35.3, 95% CI 33.4-37.2) compared to OOHCA (OR 12.7, 95% CI 11.9-13.6), with the worse outcomes seen in patients on medical wards (OR 97.37, 95% CI 87.02-108.95) and the best outcomes seen in the emergency department (OR 8.35, 95% CI 7.32-9.53). In conclusion, outcomes of AMI complicated by cardiac arrest depended on cardiac arrest location, especially the outcomes of the IHCA.

Patient response, treatments, and mortality for acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: COVID-19 might have affected the care and outcomes of hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic changed patient response, hospital treatment, and mortality from AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Admission was classified as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or STEMI at 99 hospitals in England through live feeding from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project between 1 January 2019 and 22 May 2020. Time series plots were estimated using a 7-day simple moving average, adjusted for seasonality. From 23 March 2020 (UK lockdown), median daily hospitalizations decreased more for NSTEMI [69 to 35; incidence risk ratios (IRR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.54] than STEMI (35 to 25; IRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.80) to a nadir on 19 April 2020. During lockdown, patients were younger (mean age 68.7 vs. 66.9 years), less frequently diabetic (24.6% vs. 28.1%), or had cerebrovascular disease (7.0% vs. 8.6%). ST-elevation myocardial infarction more frequently received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (81.8% vs. 78.8%), thrombolysis was negligible (0.5% vs. 0.3%), median admission-to-coronary angiography duration for NSTEMI decreased (26.2 vs. 64.0 h), median duration of hospitalization decreased (4 to 2 days), secondary prevention pharmacotherapy prescription remained unchanged (each > 94.7%). Mortality at 30 days increased for NSTEMI [from 5.4% to 7.5%; odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.80], but decreased for STEMI (from 10.2% to 7.7%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.97). CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, there was a substantial decline in admissions with AMI. Those who presented to hospital were younger, less comorbid and, for NSTEMI, had higher 30-day mortality.

The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP).

AIMS: The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) collects data from admissions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland with Type 1 myocardial infarction (T1 MI). The project aims to improve clinical care through the audit process and to provide powerful high-resolution data for research. METHODS AND RESULTS: MINAP collects data spanning 130 data fields covering the course of patient care, from the moment the patient calls for professional help through to hospital discharge and rehabilitation. Data are entered by clinicians and clerical staff within hospitals, and pseudonymized records are uploaded centrally to the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR), hosted by Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. Two hundred and six hospitals submit over 92 000 new cases to MINAP annually. Approximately 1.5 million patient records are currently held in the database. Patient demographics, medical history, clinical assessment, investigations, treatments, drug therapy prior to admission, during hospital stay, and at discharge are collected. Data completeness of three key data fields (age, admission blood pressure, and heart rate) is over 91%. Vital status following hospital discharge is obtained via linkage to data from the United Kingdom Office for National Statistics. An annual report is compiled using these data, with individual hospital summary data included. Datasets are available to researchers by application to NICOR. CONCLUSION: MINAP is the largest single healthcare system heart attack registry, and includes data from hospitalizations with T1 MI in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It includes high-resolution data across the patient pathway and is a powerful tool for quality improvement and research.

Use and impact of the prehospital 12-lead ECG in the primary PCI era (PHECG2): protocol for a mixed-method study.

Introduction: Use of the prehospital 12-lead ECG (PHECG) is recommended in patients presenting to emergency medical services (EMS) with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Prior research found that although PHECG use was associated with improved 30-day survival, a third of patients (typically women, the elderly and those with comorbidities) under EMS care did not receive a PHECG.The overall aim of the PHECG2 study is to update evidence on care and outcomes for patients eligible for PHECG, specifically addressing the following research questions: (1) Is there a difference in 30-day mortality, and in reperfusion rate, between those who do and those who do not receive PHECG? (2) Has the proportion of eligible patients who receive PHECG changed since the introduction of primary percutaneous coronary intervention networks? (3) Are patients that receive PHECG different from those that do not in terms of social and demographic factors, or prehospital clinical presentation? (4) What factors influence EMS clinicians' decisions to perform PHECG? Methods and analysis: This is an explanatory, mixed-method study comprising four work packages (WPs). WP1 is a population-based, linked-data analysis of a national ACS registry (Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project). WP2 is a retrospective chart review of patient records from three large regional EMS. WP3 comprises focus groups of EMS personnel. WP4 will synthesise findings from WP1-3 to inform the development of an intervention to increase PHECG uptake. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (ref: 18LO1679). Findings will be disseminated through feedback to participating EMS, conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number: NCT03699137.