European Society of Cardiology guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: part 1-epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis.

AIMS: Since its emergence in early 2020, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has reached pandemic levels, and there have been repeated outbreaks across the globe. The aim of this two-part series is to provide practical knowledge and guidance to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in association with COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: A narrative literature review of the available evidence has been performed, and the resulting information has been organized into two parts. The first, reported here, focuses on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis of cardiovascular (CV) conditions that may be manifest in patients with COVID-19. The second part, which will follow in a later edition of the journal, addresses the topics of care pathways, treatment, and follow-up of CV conditions in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive review is not a formal guideline but rather a document that provides a summary of current knowledge and guidance to practicing clinicians managing patients with CVD and COVID-19. The recommendations are mainly the result of observations and personal experience from healthcare providers. Therefore, the information provided here may be subject to change with increasing knowledge, evidence from prospective studies, and changes in the pandemic. Likewise, the guidance provided in the document should not interfere with recommendations provided by local and national healthcare authorities.

COVID-19 and Disruptive Modifications to Cardiac Critical Care Delivery: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on the workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supplies. To ensure provider safety, to maximize efficiency, and to optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This review draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe, as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. This review offers pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies (e.g., telemedicine) to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives.

Impact of Sex on Comparative Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Invasive Management: Data From the Randomized MATRIX-Access Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) is associated with consistent outcomes in male and female patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. BACKGROUND: There are limited and contrasting data about sex disparities for the safety and efficacy of TRA versus TFA for coronary intervention. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) program, 8,404 patients were randomized to TRA or TFA. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACCE or major bleeding. RESULTS: Among 8,404 patients, 2,232 (26.6%) were women and 6,172 (73.4%) were men. MACCE and NACE were not significantly different between men and women after adjustment, but women had higher risk of access site bleeding (male vs. female rate ratio [RR]: 0.64; p = 0.0016), severe bleeding (RR: 0.17; p = 0.0012), and transfusion (RR: 0.56; p = 0.0089). When comparing radial versus femoral, there was no significant interaction for MACCE and NACE stratified by sex (pint = 0.15 and 0.18, respectively), although for both coprimary endpoints the benefit with TRA was relatively greater in women (RR: 0.73; p = 0.019; and RR: 0.73; p = 0.012, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant interaction between male and female patients for the individual endpoints of all-cause death (pint = 0.79), myocardial infarction (pint = 0.25), stroke (pint = 0.18), and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 (pint = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Women showed a higher risk of severe bleeding and access site complications, and radial access was an effective method to reduce these complications as well as composite ischemic and ischemic or bleeding endpoints.

Implementation of standardized assessment and reporting of myocardial infarction in contemporary randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a key endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but heterogeneous definitions limit comparisons across RCTs or meta-analyses. The 2000 European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology MI redefinition and the 2007 universal MI definition consensus documents made recommendations to address this issue. In cardiovascular randomized trials, we evaluated the impact of implementation of three key recommendations from these reports-troponin use to define MI; separate reporting of spontaneous and procedure-related MI; and infarct size reporting. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases for cardiovascular RCTs with more than 500 patients in which enrolment began between September 2000 and July 2012 and that listed MI in the primary endpoint. We searched English-language publications with primary results or design papers. Of 3222 studies screened, 96 (3.0%) met our criteria. We extracted enrolment start date, number of patients and MI events, follow-up duration, and coronary revascularization rate. Data extraction quality was assessed by duplicated extractions. Of 96 RCTs, 80 had a primary results publication, comprising 608 091 patients and 43 621 endpoint MIs. Myocardial infarction represented 45.3% (95% confidence interval, 40.2-50.4) of events in the primary composite endpoint. Troponin defined MI in 57% (53/93) of trials with an MI definition available. Of these RCTs, three used troponin only if creatine kinase-MB was unavailable, six used troponin to define peri-procedural MI, seven specified the 99th percentile as the MI decision limit, and three reported spontaneous and procedure-related MI separately. None reported biomarker-based infarct size, but five reported MI as multiples of the assay upper limit of normal. Although MI is a major component of cardiovascular RCT primary endpoints, standardized MI reporting and implementation of consensus document recommendations for MI definition are limited. Developing appropriate strategies for uniform implementation is required.