Syncope in ICD recipients: a single centre experience.

AIMS: There is little evidence of the impact of syncope in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients in routine community hospital care. This single-centre retrospective study sought to evaluate the incidence and prognostic significance of syncope in consecutive ICD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing first ICD implantation between January 2009 and December 2019. The primary endpoints were the first occurrence of all-cause syncope, all-cause mortality, and all-cause hospitalization. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify risk factors associated with syncope and to analyse the subsequent risk of mortality and hospitalization. 1003 patients (58% primary prevention) were included in the final analysis. During a mean follow-up of 1519 ± 1055 days, 106 (10.6%) experienced syncope, 304 died (30.3%), and 477 (47.5%) were hospitalized for any cause. In an analysis adjusted for baseline variables, the first occurrence of syncope was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality (HR 2.82, P < 0.001) and the first occurrence of hospitalization (HR 2.46, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Syncope in ICD recipients is common and associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of baseline variables and ICD programming. The occurrence of syncope is associated with a significant increase in the risk of mortality and hospitalization.

Cardiovascular Damage in COVID-19: What We Know Two Years Later.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly influenced cardiological clinical and basic research in the past two years. In the present review, we summarize the current knowledge on myocardial involvement in COVID-19, providing an overview on the incidence, the pathogenetic mechanisms, and the clinical implications of cardiac injury in this setting. RECENT FINDINGS: The possibility of heart involvement in patients with COVID-19 has received great attention since the beginning of the pandemic. After more than two years, several steps have been taken in understanding the mechanisms and the incidence of cardiac injury during COVID-19 infection. Similarly, studies globally have clarified the implications of co-existing heart disease and COVID-19. Severe COVID-19 infection may be complicated by myocardial injury. To date, a direct damage from the virus has not been demonstrated. The presence of myocardial injury should be systematically assessed for a prognostication purpose and for possible therapeutic implications.

Generic ICD programming and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Generic ICD programming, where shock-reduction programming is extrapolated from trials of one manufacturer to another, may reduce non-essential ICD therapies beyond that seen in randomized trials. However, the benefits and risks are unknown. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of a standardized programming protocol, based on generic programming, across manufacturers. METHODS: We included all new ICDs in a single center (2009-2019). In 2013 a standardized programming protocol based on generic programming was introduced, incorporating high detection rates (200 bpm for primary prevention) and long detection (30/40 or equivalent in VF zone) for all patients. Patients were classified into three groups based on implant programming: pre-guideline (PS), post-guideline and guideline compliant (GC) and post-guideline but not guideline compliant (NGC). The end-points were the first occurrence of any device therapy (ATP or shock), ICD shock, syncope and all-cause mortality. Survival analysis was used to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: 1003 patients were included (mean follow-up 1519 ± 1005 days). In primary prevention patients (n = 583) freedom from ICD therapy (91.5% vs. 73.6%, p < .001) or shock (94.7% vs 84.8%, p = .02) were significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without significant increase in syncope or mortality. In secondary prevention patients (n = 420) freedom from any ICD therapy or any shock were non-significantly higher in GC compared to PS patients, without an increase in syncope or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention patients a standardized programming protocol, incorporating generic programming, reduced the burden of ICD therapy without an increase in adverse outcomes.

Impact of different selection policies on subcutaneous ICD implants and therapies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with existing or anticipated indications for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), bradycardia, or anti-tachycardia pacing should not be offered subcutaneous defibrillators (SQIDs) but it remains unclear how clinicians should predict future need for these therapies. METHODS: We applied three SQID selection policies to data collected retrospectively from transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) implants: (a) approach A, SQID used in inherited channelopathies and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation only; (b) approach B, as above, plus all hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and grown-up congenital heart disease patients; (c) approach C, as above, plus primary and secondary prevention (for ventricular fibrillation only) of SCD in patients with QRS <150 ms. Approach C reflects current ESC and AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines. RESULTS: 338 of 951 patients with TV-ICD were considered for SQID after excluding 613 patients with contraindications. Approaches A, B, and C yielded 45 (4.7%), 89 (9.4%), and 338 (35.5%) patients suitable for SQID, respectively. Use of SQID resulted in more frequent ICD shocks compared to TV-ICD with approach C only (0.43 vs 0.23 per 1000 patient-days; P = .03). Rates of CRT upgrade were comparable across selection criteria (0, 0.03, and 0.07 per 1000 patient-days for approaches A, B, and C, respectively; P = NS). Risk of early mortality was higher when more liberal inclusion criteria were used (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: One in three patients receiving ICDs may be suitable for SQID under current ESC and AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines. This proportion is influenced significantly by the selection criteria used, and the criteria used by a physician should be informed by the estimated survival of the patient, risk of shocks for MVT, future pacing, and CRT requirements.

Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a meta-analysis.

Aims: Dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have traditionally been used over single-coil leads due to concerns regarding high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and consequent poor shock efficacy. However, accumulating evidence suggests that this position may be unfounded and that dual-coil leads may also be associated with higher complication rates during lead extraction. This meta-analysis collates data comparing dual- and single-coil ICD leads. Methods and results: Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies comparing single-coil and dual-coil leads. The mean differences in DFT and summary estimates of the odds-ratio (OR) for first-shock efficacy and the hazard-ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality were calculated using random effects models. Eighteen studies including a total of 138,124 patients were identified. Dual-coil leads were associated with a lower DFT compared to single coil leads (mean difference -0.83J; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.39--0.27; P = 0.004). There was no difference in the first-shock success rate with dual-coil compared to single-coil leads (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.45-1.21; P=0.22). There was a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality associated with single-coil leads (HR 0.91; 95%CI 0.86-0.95; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that single-coil leads have a marginally higher DFT but that this may be clinically insignificant as there appears to be no difference in first-shock efficacy when compared to dual-coil leads. The mortality benefit with single-coil leads most likely represents patient selection bias. Given the increased risk and complexity of extracting dual-coil leads, centres should strongly consider single-coil ICD leads as the lead of choice for routine new left-sided ICD implants.

Day-case device implantation-A prospective single-center experience including patient satisfaction data.

PURPOSE: Many centers perform day-case cardiac rhythm management (CRM) device implantation. However, there is a paucity of prospective data concerning this approach. We performed a prospective single-center study of day-case device implantation, including data on patient satisfaction. METHODS: All patients scheduled for a new elective device were considered for a day-case procedure. Exclusion criteria were living alone or without a suitable carer, advancing age/frailty, a metallic valve, and persistent complete heart block. Following discharge, patients were reviewed in device clinic at 6 weeks with an anonymized questionnaire. RESULTS: During the study period (May 2014-August 2016), 797 new CRM devices were implanted. Of these, 232 were elective and included in the analysis; 101 were planned to be day-case and 131 scheduled for overnight stay. Of the 101 day-case patients, 52 had a pacemaker, 28 an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), 16 a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker/defibrillator, and five a subcutaneous-ICD. Complications were similar in the day-case (n  =  12, 12%) and overnight stay (n  =  15, 11%) groups (P  =  0.92). In the day-case group, 93 (92%) patients went home the same day. An estimated 111 overnight bed days were saved, translating to a cost saving of £61,912 (euro 70,767, $79,211). Note that 99% (n  =  100) of patients returned the questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was universally high. The majority (n  =  98, 98%) felt ready to go home on discharge; only a minority (n  =  5, 5%) would have preferred an overnight stay. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of elective new CRM device implants can be performed as day-case procedures. With appropriate selection patient acceptability of same-day discharge is high.

The impact of adjunctive complex fractionated atrial electrogram ablation and linear lesions on outcomes in persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: In persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF), success rates for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone are limited and additional substrate modification is often performed. The two most widely used substrate-based strategies are the ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) and left atrial linear ablation (LALA) at the roof and mitral isthmus. However, it is unclear whether adjunctive CFAE ablation or LALA add significant benefit to PVI alone. We performed a meta-analysis to better gauge the benefit of adjunctive CFAE ablation and LALA in PsAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases were systematically searched. We included studies that examined the impact of CFAE ablation or LALA in addition to a PVI-based strategy on clinical outcomes in PsAF. We included both randomized and non-randomized studies. Totally 10 studies (n = 1821) were included: 6 evaluating CFAE ablation, 3 LALA, and 1 both approaches. In comparison with PVI alone, the addition of CFAE ablation [RR 0.86; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.64, 1.16; P = 0.32] or LALA (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.37, 1.09; P = 0.10) offered no significant improvement in arrhythmia-free survival. However, adjunctive CFAE ablation was associated with significant increases (P < 0.05) and LALA non-significant increases in procedure and fluoroscopy times. CONCLUSION: In PsAF, the addition of CFAE ablation or LALA, in comparison with PVI alone, offers no significant improvement in arrhythmia-free survival. Furthermore, they are associated with increases in both procedural and fluoroscopy times. The optimal ablation strategy for PsAF is currently unclear and needs further refinement.

Fragmented QRS for the prediction of sudden cardiac death: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Risk stratification of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is challenging. Fragmented QRS (fQRS) is proposed as a non-invasive electrocardiogram marker associated with mortality and SCD. Results from individual studies including small numbers of patients are discrepant. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of studies evaluating fQRS as a risk stratification tool to predict all-cause mortality and SCD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases and bibliographies were systematically searched (1996-2014). Twelve studies (5009 patients) recruiting patients with coronary artery disease or non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy met our inclusion criteria. Fragmented QRS was associated with an all-cause mortality relative risk of 1.71 (CI 1.02-2.85) and a relative risk of SCD of 2.20 (CI 1.05-4.62). Subgroup analysis demonstrated greater mortality and SCD risk in those with left ventricular ejection fraction >35% and SCD risk in those with QRS duration <120 ms. CONCLUSION: Fragmented QRS is associated with all-cause mortality and the occurrence of SCD and may be suited as a marker of SCD risk. The incremental benefit of fQRS should be assessed in a randomized, prospective setting.

Heart Failure Specialist Care and Long-Term Outcomes for Patients Admitted With Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: For patients with acute heart failure (HF), specialist HF care during admission improves diagnosis and treatments. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to investigate the association of HF specialist care with in-hospital and longer term prognosis. METHODS: The authors used data from the National Heart Failure Audit from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022, linked to electronic records for hospitalization and deaths. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome measure and in-hospital mortality the secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Data for 227,170 patients admitted to hospital with HF (median age: 81 years; IQR: 72-88 years), were analyzed. Approximately 80% of acute HF admissions received support from HF specialists. Thirty-nine percent of patients (n = 70,720) were seen by a multidisciplinary team (HF physicians and HF specialist nurses [HFSNd]), 22% (n = 40,330) were seen by HFSNs alone, and the remaining 39% (n = 71,700) were seen exclusively by specialist HF physicians. At discharge, more patients who received HF specialist care were prescribed medical therapy for HF and had specialized follow-up. Conversely, diuretic agents were prescribed to fewer patients. HF specialist care was independently associated with a higher rate of prescribing HF therapies at discharge and a lower likelihood of receiving diuretic therapy (OR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.86-0.95]; P < 0.001). HF specialist care was associated with better long-term survival (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.87-0.90]; P < 0.001) and lower in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.0.88-0.97]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving HF specialist care during admission for HF is associated with a higher rate of implementation of medical therapy, fewer discharges on diuretic therapy, and lower in-hospital and long-term mortality across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum, especially for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Left ventricular scar burden specifies the potential for ventricular arrhythmogenesis: an LGE-CMR study.

INTRODUCTION: The extent of left ventricular (LV) scar, characterized by late gadolinium enhancement cardiac MRI (LGE-CMR), has been shown to predict the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients. However, the specificity of LGE-CMR for sudden cardiac death (SCD) versus non-SCD is unclear. The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to evaluate this relationship in a cohort of ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included consecutive patients who had undergone LGE-CMR before ICD implantation over a 4-year period (2006-2009). Scar (defined as myocardium with a signal intensity ≥50% of the maximum in scar tissue) was characterized in terms of percent scar and number of transmural LV scar segments in a 17-segment model. The endpoints were appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause mortality. Sixty-four patients (average age 66 ± 11 years, 51 male, median LVEF 30%) were included. During 42 ± 13 months follow-up, appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 28 patients (44%), and 14 patients (22%) died. Number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.005) and percentage LV scar (P = 0.03) were both significantly associated with appropriate ICD therapy. However, neither number of transmural scar segments (P = 0.32) or percent LV scar (P = 0.59) was significantly associated with all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, in medium-term follow-up, the extent of LV scar characterized by LGE-CMR was strongly associated with the occurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias but not all-cause mortality. We hypothesize that scar quantification by LGE-CMR may be more specific for SCD than non-SCD, and may prove a valuable tool for the selection of patients for ICD therapy.

Can QRS scoring predict left ventricular scar and clinical outcomes?

AIMS: Identifying patients with potential to benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is challenging. Myocardial scar detected using cardiovascular myocardial resonance imaging with late gadolinium enhancement (CMR-LGE) is associated with ventricular arrhythmia. Its use is constrained due to limited availability, unlike electrocardiogram (ECG) which is widely available. Selvester QRS scoring detects scar, although the reported performance varies. The study aims were to determine whether QRS score (a) detects scar (b) varies with scar characteristics, and (c) can meaningfully predict sudden cardiac death. METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated 64 consecutive ICD recipients (age 66 ± 11 years, 80% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction 30%) with coronary artery disease who had undergone CMR-LGE prior to device implantation, over 4 years in a single centre (2006-2009). A modified QRS score was measured on the ECG performed prior to ICD implantation. Clinical end points were (i) appropriate ICD therapy and (ii) all cause mortality. QRS score was associated with CMR scar (r = 0.42, P = 0.001) and scar surface area (r = 0.41, P = 0.001), but not subendocardial scar. Strongest correlation was seen in those patients with transmural scar only (r = 0.62, P = 0.01). During 42 ± 13 months follow-up, QRS score was not predictive of appropriate ICD therapy, but was significantly related to all cause mortality (hazard ratio = 1.16; confidence interval = 1.03-1.30; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: QRS scoring performed best in quantifying transmural scar, and shows association with medium-term mortality risk, but not with risk of ventricular arrhythmia. It may be that the score is best suited as a risk stratifier of those with least potential to benefit from ICD.

The relationship between left ventricular scar and ventricular repolarization in patients with coronary artery disease: insights from late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging.

AIMS: The markers of ventricular repolarization corrected QT interval (QTc), QT dispersion (QTD) and Tpeak-to-Tend interval (Tpeak-end) have shown an association with sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the general population. However, their mechanistic relationship with SCD is unclear. The study aim was to evaluate the relationship between QTc, QTD, and Tpeak-end, and the extent and distribution of left ventricular (LV) scar in patients with coronary artery disease at high SCD risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 64 consecutive implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients (66 ± 11 years, 80% male, median left ventricular ejection fraction 30%) who had undergone late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging prior to device implantation over 4 years. Scar was quantified using the CMR images and characterized in terms of percent LV scar and number of LV segments with subendocardial/transmural scar. Repolarization parameters were measured on an electrocardiogram performed prior to ICD implantation. After adjustment for potential confounders there was a strong association between the number of limited subendocardial (1-25% transmurality) scar segments and QTc (P = 0.003), QTD (P = 0.002), and Tpeak-end (P = 0.008). However, there was no association between the repolarization parameters and percent LV scar or the amount of transmural scar. During a mean follow-up of 19 ± 10 months 19 (30%) patients received appropriate ICD therapy, but none of the repolarization parameters were associated with its occurrence. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study there was a strong association between limited subendocardial LV scar and prolonged QTc, QTD, and Tpeak-end. However, there was no association between any of these repolarization markers and the delivery of appropriate ICD therapy.

Diagnostic accuracy, clinical characteristics, and prognostic differences of patients with acute myocarditis according to inclusion criteria.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of acute myocarditis (AM) is complex due to its heterogeneity and typically is defined by either Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs) or advanced imaging and endomyocardial biopsy, but there is no consensus. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of these approaches for AM. METHODS: Data on ICD 10th Revision(ICD-10) codes corresponding to AM were collected from two hospitals and compared to CMR-confirmed or clinically suspected(CS) AM cases with respect to diagnostic accuracy, clinical characteristics, and all-cause mortality. Next, we performed a review of published AM studies according to inclusion criteria. RESULTS: We identified 291 unique admissions with ICD-10 codes corresponding to AM in the first three diagnostic positions. The positive predictive value(PPV) of ICD-10 codes for CMR-confirmed or CS-AM was 36%, and patients with CMR-confirmed or CS AM had a lower all-cause mortality than those with a refuted diagnosis (P = 0.019). Using an unstructured approach, patients with CMR-confirmed and CS AM had similar demographics, comorbidity profiles and survival over a median follow-up of 52 months (P = 0.72). Our review of the literature confirmed our findings. Outcomes for patients included in studies using CMR-confirmed criteria were favourable compared to studies with EMB-confirmed AM cases. CONCLUSION: ICD-10 codes have poor accuracy in identification of AM cases and should be used with caution in clinical research. There are important differences in management and outcomes of patients according to the selection criteria used to diagnose AM. Potential selection biases must be considered when interpreting AM cohorts and requires standardisation of inclusion criteria for AM studies.

The prognostic impact of specialist cardiology input in patients admitted for heart failure and normal ejection fraction.

AIMS: Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in-hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co-morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate-to-severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09-0.43, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital cardiology specialist input has no long-term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Do patients at high risk of nonsudden cardiac death benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Randomized controlled trials have established that prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy improves survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, mortality reduction is not uniform across the implanted population and recent data have highlighted the importance of nonsudden cardiac death (non-SCD) risk in predicting benefit from ICD therapy. This review explores the importance of non-SCD risk in patient selection for prophylactic ICD therapy, as well as the proposed approaches to identify potential ICD recipients at high risk of non-SCD. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that patients at high risk of non-SCD do not gain significant survival benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy irrespective of their risk of SCD. A variety of strategies to identify low LVEF patients at high risk of non-SCD have been proposed. These include the use of individual risk markers, such as advanced age and renal dysfunction, the presence of cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, and the use of more complex risk scores. SUMMARY: Non-SCD risk is an important issue in patient selection for prophylactic ICD therapy. However, the optimal strategy to identify patients at high non-SCD risk is unclear and further research is needed.

Rates of upgrade of ICD recipients to CRT in clinical practice and the potential impact of the more liberal use of CRT at initial implant.

BACKGROUND: Many implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients may develop indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) during follow-up. However, the actual upgrade rate during follow-up in clinical practice is not known. METHODS: We performed a single center retrospective observational study of all new ICD implants over 5 years (2003-2007). The rate of CRT upgrade of patients initially implanted with a single-/dual-chamber ICD during follow-up was assessed. The impact of using alternative criteria on the need for CRT in ICD recipients at initial implant was also evaluated. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 549 new ICD implants. The initial implant was a single/dual-chamber ICD in 73% (n = 399) and a CRT-D in 27% (n = 150). During follow-up (48±20 months) of the 399 ICD recipients, 70 (17.5%) died and 15 (3.8%) were upgraded to CRT, including eight cases where left ventricular lead implant had been initially unsuccessful. Upgrade rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.03%, 2.4%, and 5.1%, respectively. Using alternative CRT criteria (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]≤30%, QRS ≥130 ms, New York Heart Association I-IV) 42.6% (n = 234) of ICD recipients met criteria for CRT at initial implant. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective single center study, rates of CRT upgrade in ICD recipients over the medium term were low, which may reflect underuse in otherwise appropriate candidates. The more liberal use of CRT at initial implant in patients with a reduced LVEF, a broad QRS, but only mild heart failure symptoms would require approximately 50% increase in CRT use in ICD recipients at initial implant, and may help address some of the suggested underutilization.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital mortality in cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in excess mortality due to both COVID-19 directly and other conditions, including cardiovascular (CV) disease. We aimed to explore the excess in-hospital mortality, unrelated to COVID-19 infection, across a range of CV diseases. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search was performed for studies investigating in-hospital mortality among patients admitted with CV disease without SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with a period outside the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen studies on 27 421 patients with CV disease were included in the analysis. The average in-hospital mortality rate was 10.4% (n = 974) in the COVID-19 group and 5.7% (n = 1026) in the comparator group. Compared with periods outside the COVID-19 pandemic, the pooled risk ratio (RR) demonstrated increased in-hospital mortality by 62% during COVID-19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.20, P = 0.002]. Studies with a decline in admission rate >50% during the COVID-19 pandemic observed the greatest increase in mortality compared with those with <50% reduction [RR 2.74 (95% CI 2.43-3.10) vs. 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.37), P < 0.001]. The observed increased mortality was consistent across different CV conditions (P = 0.74 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality among patients admitted with CV diseases was increased relative to periods outside the pandemic, independent of co-infection with COVID-19. This effect was larger in studies with the biggest decline in admission rates, suggesting a sicker cohort of patients in this period. However, studies were generally poorly conducted, and there is a need for further well-designed studies to establish the full extent of mortality not directly related to COVID-19 infection.

Patients hospitalised with heart failure across different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic show consistent clinical characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, admissions for cardiovascular disease, including Heart Failure (HF), were reduced. Patients hospitalised for HF were sicker and with increased in-hospital mortality. So far, whether following waves had a different impact on HF patients is unknown. METHODS: All consecutive patients hospitalised for acute heart failure during three different COVID-19 related national lockdowns were analysed. The lockdown periods were defined according to Government guidelines as 23/3/2020 to 4/7/2020 (First Lockdown), 4/11/2020 to 2/12/2020 (Second Lockdown) and 5/1/2021 to 28/2/2021 (Third Lockdown). RESULTS: Overall, 184 patients hospitalised for HF were included in the study, 95 during the 1st lockdown, 30 during the 2nd lockdown and 59 during the 3rd lockdown. Across the three groups had comparable clinical characteristics, comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors. Specialist in-hospital care was uninterrupted during the pandemic showing comparable mortality rates (p = 0.10). Although medical therapy for HF was comparable between the three lockdowns, a significantly higher proportion of patients received Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNI) in the second and third lockdowns (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although public health approaches changed throughout the pandemic, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of HF patients were consistent across different waves. For patients hospitalised in the subsequent waves, a more rapid optimization of medical therapy was observed during hospitalization. Particular attention should be devoted to prevent collateral cardiovascular damage during public health emergencies.

Prognostic relevance of demographic factors in cardiac magnetic resonance-proven acute myocarditis: A cohort study.

Aim: Acute myocarditis (AM) is a heterogeneous condition with variable estimates of survival. Contemporary criteria for the diagnosis of clinically suspected AM enable non-invasive assessment, resulting in greater sensitivity and more representative cohorts. We aimed to describe the demographic characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with AM diagnosed using non-invasive criteria. Methods and results: A total of 199 patients with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-confirmed AM were included. The majority (n = 130, 65%) were male, and the average age was 39 ± 16 years. Half of the patients were White (n = 99, 52%), with the remainder from Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups. The most common clinical presentation was chest pain (n = 156, 78%), with smaller numbers presenting with breathlessness (n = 25, 13%) and arrhythmias (n = 18, 9%). Patients admitted with breathlessness were sicker and more often required inotropes, steroids, and renal replacement therapy (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.01, respectively). Over a median follow-up of 53 (IQR 34-76) months, 11 patients (6%) experienced an adverse outcome, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients in the arrhythmia group had a worse prognosis, with a nearly sevenfold risk of adverse events [hazard ratio (HR) 6.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.87-26.00, p = 0.004]. Sex and ethnicity were not significantly associated with the outcome. Conclusion: AM is highly heterogeneous with an overall favourable prognosis. Three-quarters of patients with AM present with chest pain, which is associated with a benign prognosis. AM presenting with life-threatening arrhythmias is associated with a higher risk of adverse events.

Defining potential to benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy: the role of biomarkers.

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy improves survival in patients at high sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk. However, some patient groups fulfilling indications for ICD therapy may not gain significant benefit: patients whose absolute risk of SCD is low and patients whose risk of death even with an ICD is high. The value of biomarkers in identifying patients' potential for survival benefit from ICD therapy is unknown. We performed a pilot study to investigate this. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five established cardiovascular biomarkers were measured in patients with ICDs on the background of left ventricular dysfunction: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP], soluble ST2 [sST2], growth differentiation factor-15, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and survival with appropriate ICD therapy. One hundred and fifty-six patients were enrolled (age 69 years [Q1-Q3 62-77], 85% male, 76% ischaemic aetiology). During a follow-up of 15 ± 3 months, 12 patients died and 43 survived with appropriate ICD therapy. In a Cox proportional hazards model, the strongest predictors of death were Log sST2 (P< 0.001), serum creatinine (P< 0.001), and Log NT-proBNP (P= 0.002). The strongest predictor of survival with appropriate ICD therapy was Log NT-proBNP (P= 0.01). CONCLUSION: The biomarkers NT-proBNP and sST2 are promising biomarkers for identifying patients with little potential to gain significant survival benefit from ICD therapy. However, their incremental benefit, in addition to currently available clinical risk prediction models, remains unclear. These results demand a confirmatory prospective cohort study, designed and powered to derive and validate prediction algorithms incorporating these markers.