Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias related to COVID infection and vaccination in patients with Brugada syndrome: Insights from a large Italian multicenter registry based on continuous rhythm monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome (BrS) has a dynamic ECG pattern that might be revealed by certain conditions such as fever. We evaluated the incidence and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination among BrS patients carriers of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients were carriers of devices with remote monitoring follow-up. We recorded VAs 6 months before COVID-19 infection or vaccination, during infection, at each vaccination, and up to 6-month post-COVID-19 or 1 month after the last vaccination. In ICD carriers, we documented any device intervention. RESULTS: We included 326 patients, 202 with an ICD and 124 with an ILR. One hundred and nine patients (33.4%) had COVID-19, 55% of whom developed fever. Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection was 2.76%. After infection, we recorded only two ventricular tachycardias (VTs). After the first, second, and third vaccines, the incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was 1.5%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The incidence of VT was 1% after the second dose. Six-month post-COVID-19 healing or 1 month after the last vaccine, we documented NSVT in 3.4%, VT in 0.5%, and ventricular fibrillation in 0.5% of patients. Overall, one patient received anti-tachycardia pacing and one a shock. ILR carriers had no VAs. No differences were found in VT before and after infection and before and after each vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: From this large multicenter study conducted in BrS patients, followed by remote monitoring, the overall incidence of sustained VAs after COVID-19 infection and vaccination is relatively low.

[2020 Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing]. / Registro Italiano Ablazioni 2020. Associazione Italiana di Aritmologia e Cardiostimolazione.

BACKGROUND: This report describes the findings of the 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). METHODS: Data collection was retrospective. A standardized questionnaire was completed by each of the participating centers. RESULTS: A total of 10 378 ablation procedures were performed by 66 institutions. Most centers (70%) have an electrophysiology laboratory, and 23% a hybrid cardiac surgery laboratory. All centers have a 3D mapping system. The median number of electrophysiologists and nurses involved in the electrophysiology laboratory was 3.5 and 3, respectively. An electrophysiology technician was involved in 35% of all centers. In 88.2% of cases, catheter ablation was performed for supraventricular arrhythmias; the most frequently treated arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation (39.4%), followed by atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (18.6%), and common atrial flutter (10.6%). In 72.9% of patients, catheter ablation was performed using a 3D mapping system, with a "near-zero" fluoroscopic approach in 37.7% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry confirmed that the electrophysiology activity was markedly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; atrial fibrillation is the most frequently treated arrhythmia with an increasing number of procedures performed with a 3D mapping system and a "near-zero" approach.

The Feasibility, Effectiveness and Acceptance of Virtual Visits as Compared to In-Person Visits among Clinical Electrophysiology Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).

BACKGROUND: The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care. METHODS: A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched. RESULTS: A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined. CONCLUSIONS: The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

Antecedent Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists and Survival After Hospitalization for COVID-19 Syndrome.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to enter human cells. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) are associated with ACE-2 upregulation. We hypothesized that antecedent use of ACEI/ARB may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 4 regions of Italy, and restricted analyses to those ≥50 years of age. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Among these 781 patients, 133 (17.0%) used an ARB and 171 (21.9%) used an ACEI. While neither sex nor smoking status differed by user groups, patients on ACEI/ARB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (118/781) and increased with age (PTrend<0.0001). The crude odds ratios (ORs) for death for ACEI users and ARB users were 0.98, 95% CI, 0.60-1.60, P=0.9333, and 1.13, 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P=0.6385, respectively. After adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure, antecedent ACEI administration was associated with reduced mortality (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98, P=0.0436); a similar, but weaker trend was observed for ARB administration (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.07, P=0.0796). Conclusions In those aged ≥50 years hospitalized with COVID-19, antecedent use of ACEI was independently associated with reduced risk of inpatient death. Our findings suggest a protective role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients with high cardiovascular risk affected by COVID-19.

Clinical Management of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19 Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cardiac Arrhythmia Center after Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Available reports on the post-discharge management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in COVID-19 patients are scarce. The aim of this case series was to describe the clinical outcomes of new-onset AF in COVID-19 patients referred to a tertiary cardiac arrhythmia center after hospital discharge. METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to our center for an ambulatory evaluation from 18 May 2020 to 15 March 2022 were retrospectively screened. Patients were included in the current analysis if new-onset AF was diagnosed during hospitalization for COVID-19 and then referred to our clinic. RESULTS: Among 946 patients, 23 (2.4%) were evaluated for new-onset AF during COVID-19. The mean age of the study cohort was 71.5 ± 8.1 years; 87.0% were male. Median time from COVID-19 discharge and the first ambulatory evaluation was 53 (41.5-127) days; median follow-up time was 175 (83-336) days. At the in-office evaluation, 14 (60.9%) patients were in sinus rhythm, and nine patients were in AF. In 13.0% of cases, oral anticoagulation was stopped according to CHADS-VASc. Eight patients in AF were scheduled for electrical cardioversion; one patient was rate-controlled. Four patients were treated with catheter ablation (CA) during follow-up. Two post-cardioversion AF recurrences were detected during follow-up, while no recurrences were diagnosed among patients who underwent CA. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that AF may not be considered as a simple bystander of the in-hospital COVID-19 course. Management of new-onset AF in post-COVID-19 patients referred to our clinic did not significantly differ from our usual practice, both in terms of long-term oral anticoagulation and in terms of rhythm control strategy.

Inpatient Mortality According to Level of Respiratory Support Received for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) Infection: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe patients according to the maximum degree of respiratory support received and report their inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Analysis of patients in the Coracle registry from February 22, 2020, to April 1, 2020. SETTING: Hospitals in the Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, and Lazio regions of Italy. PATIENTS: Nine-hundred forty-eight patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 948 patients, 122 (12.87%) received invasive ventilation, 637 (67.19%) received supplemental oxygen only, and 189 (19.94%) received no respiratory support. The median (quartile 1-quartile 3) age was 65 years (54-76.59 yr), and there was evidence of differential respiratory treatment by decade of life (p = 0.0046); patients greater than 80 years old were generally not intubated. There were 606 men (63.9%) in this study, and they were more likely to receive respiratory support than women (p < 0.0001). The rate of in-hospital death for invasive ventilation recipients was 22.95%, 12.87% for supplemental oxygen recipients, and 7.41% for those who received neither (p = 0.0004). A sensitivity analysis of the 770 patients less than 80 years old revealed a lower, but similar mortality trend (18.02%, 8.10%, 5.23%; p = 0.0008) among the 14.42%, 65.71%, and 19.87% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen only, or neither. Overall, invasive ventilation recipients who died were significantly older than those who survived (median age: 68.5 yr [60-81.36 yr] vs 62.5 yr [55.52-71 yr]; p = 0.0145). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019, 13% received mechanical ventilation, which was associated with a mortality rate of 23%.

Usefulness of Combined Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Diuretic Treatment In Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Antecedent use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) prevents clinical deterioration and protects against cardiovascular/thrombotic complications of COVID-19, for indicated patients. Uncertainty exists regarding treatment continuation throughout infection and doing so with concomitant medications. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the differential effect of RASi continuation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 according to diuretic use. We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 4 regions of Italy. We used Firth logistic regression for adult (>50 years) cases with admission on/after February 22, 2020, with a known discharge status as of April 1, 2020. There were 286 patients in this analysis; 100 patients (35.0%) continued RASi and 186 (65%) discontinued. There were 98 patients treated with a diuretic; 51 (52%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 8% versus 26% (p = 0.0179). There were 188 patients not treated with a diuretic; 49 (26%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients not treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 16% versus 9% (p = 0.1827). After accounting for age, cardiovascular disease, and laboratory values, continuing RASi decreased the risk of mortality by approximately 77% (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.95, p = 0.0419) for patients treated with diuretics, but did not alter the risk in patients treated with RASi alone. Continuing RASi in patients concomitantly treated with diuretics was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Usefulness of Combined Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Diuretic Treatment In Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Antecedent use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) prevents clinical deterioration and protects against cardiovascular/thrombotic complications of COVID-19, for indicated patients. Uncertainty exists regarding treatment continuation throughout infection and doing so with concomitant medications. Hence, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the differential effect of RASi continuation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 according to diuretic use. We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from 4 regions of Italy. We used Firth logistic regression for adult (>50 years) cases with admission on/after February 22, 2020, with a known discharge status as of April 1, 2020. There were 286 patients in this analysis;100 patients (35.0%) continued RASi and 186 (65%) discontinued. There were 98 patients treated with a diuretic;51 (52%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 8% versus 26% (p = 0.0179). There were 188 patients not treated with a diuretic;49 (26%) of those continued RASi. The in-hospital mortality rates in patients not treated with a diuretic and continued versus discontinued RASi were 16% versus 9% (p = 0.1827). After accounting for age, cardiovascular disease, and laboratory values, continuing RASi decreased the risk of mortality by approximately 77% (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.95, p = 0.0419) for patients treated with diuretics, but did not alter the risk in patients treated with RASi alone. Continuing RASi in patients concomitantly treated with diuretics was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Impact of prior statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: data from tertiary referral hospital during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

Aims Epidemiological evidence suggests that anti-inflammatory and immuno-modulatory properties of statins may reduce the risk of infections and infection-related complications. In this observational multi-centre study, we aimed to assess the impact of prior statin use on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity and mortality. Methods and results Consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were considered and enrolled in four tertiary referral hospitals (Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan;Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome;Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia;Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital;Bergamo) From 23 February 2020 to 31 March 2020, in-hospital mortality and severity of COVID-19 assessed with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were deemed primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Among 842 patients enrolled, 179 (21%) were treated with statins before admission. Statin patients showed more comorbidities and more severe COVID-19 [NEWS 4 (IQR: 2–6) vs. 3 (IQR: 2–5), P < 0.001]. Despite having similar rates of intensive care unit admission, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation, statin users appeared to show higher mortality rates. After balancing pre-existing relevant clinical conditions that could affect COVID-19 prognosis with propensity score matching, statin therapy confirmed its association with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5;61% vs. 48%, P = 0.025) but not with in-hospital mortality (26% vs. 28%, P = 0.185). At univariate logistic regression analysis, statin use was confirmed not to be associated with mortality (OR: 0.901;95% CI: 0.537–1.51;P = 0.692) and to be associated with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5 OR: 1.7;95% CI: 1.067–2.71;P = 0.026). Conclusions Our results did not confirm the supposed favourable effects of statin therapy on COVID-19 outcomes. Conversely, they suggest that statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities, which indeed expose to increased risks of more severe COVID-19.538 Figure 1

The role of virtual visits in cardiology: from the pandemic era to future perspectives

Aims During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in-person visits were reduced to prevent potential risk of exposure. Virtual visits (VVs) represent an innovative model to take care of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of VV in the management of CIED patients. Methods and results We performed a prospective study including all CIED patients who received a VV from July 2020 to July 2021. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and body weight were registered by the patient. Moreover, we sent to the patient a questionnaire to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction about VV. We enrolled 182 patients in the study period. The mean age of patients was 70.2 ± 13.5 years-old and the majority (61.1%) was male. In two cases, VVs were not performed due to technical issues. Overall, 70.9% of patients utilized a smartphone, while 20.1% and 9% used, respectively, a tablet or a personal computer. The mean duration of VV was 27.8 ± 7.8 min. Patients helped by a caregiver were 64 (35.2%). One urgent/emergent in‐person visit was performed in a patient with acute heart failure. Overall, VV was preferred to in-person evaluation. Conclusion VV is a safe and feasible approach to follow-up CIED patients. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached after VV. The use of VV has promising potential and should be implemented beyond COVID-19 period and integrated in the healthcare system as a new model of care.

ACE-I and ARBS do not influence the chest CT presentation and 1-year survival of COVID-19 patients: Italian multicentre registry

Aims A possible interference between ACE-i or ARBs with ACE-2 receptor and SARS-CoV-2 pathway has been raised. Despite data have shown no clinical impact of therapy with ACE-I or ARBs on COVID-19, these drugs are often discontinued upon hospitalization or diagnosis. To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and prior outpatient therapy with RAAS inhibitors on the chest CT severity score performed within 24 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (before stopping medications or starting specific therapy for COVID-19) and on 1-year survival. Methods and results This is a multicentre, prospective, observational study. All admitted patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who performed chest CT within 24 h of arrival were consecutively enrolled from 1 March to 1 June 2020. A severity score was attributed to Chest CT by two radiologists in blind to the patient’s clinical information and a cut-off value of 19.5 was considered to define severe radiological pneumonia. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed in order to evaluate the determinants of 1-year survival. 590 patients with a mean age of 63 ± 14 years were included. Seventy-three (12.4%) patients were treated with ACE-I, 85 (14.4%) with ARBs and 62 (10.5%) with CCB. Cox regression analysis showed that male gender (OR: 1.4;95% CI: from 1.02 to 2.07;P = 0.035), diabetes (OR: 1.6;95% CI: from 1.03 to 2.7;P = 0.037), age (OR: 1.02;95% CI: from 1.008 to 1.033;P = 0.001), and obesity (OR: 3.04;95% CI: from 1.3 to 6.7;P < 0.001) were independently associated with a severe CT score. Of note, while prior outpatient therapy with ACE-I and ARBs was not independently associated with severe CT score, therapy with CCB was independently associated with a severe CT score (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.4, P = 0.033). Severe chest CT severity score (OR: 1.05;95% CI: from 1.02 to 1.08;P < 0.001), P/F ratio (OR: 0.998;95% CI: from 0.994 to 0.998;P < 0.001), and older age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: from 1.03 to 1.1;P < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality at 1-year follow-up. Neither ACE-I, ARBs, and CCB were associated with mortality at 1 year follow-up. Conclusions ACE-I and ARBs do not influence the chest CT presentation of COVID-19 patients at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, ACE-I and ARBs do not influence 1-year survival of COVID-19 survivors.

Arrhythmogenic Risk and Mechanisms of QT-Prolonging Drugs to Treat COVID-19.

While looking for a solution to treat COVID-19, the massive off-label use of several drugs in COVID-19 has generated concerns in the early phase of the pandemic because of possible arrhythmogenic effects in relation to QTc interval prolongation. Indeed, some of these drugs have been historically associated with QT prolongation and Torsade de Point, a potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia, and their first-time use on a very large scale has raised several concerns in the scientific community. This work aims to summarize the underlying arrhythmogenic mechanisms related to the use of potentially QT-prolonging drugs used during the pandemic to treat COVID-19.

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey. METHODS: Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure. RESULTS: The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe. CONCLUSION: CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.

Reduction of admissions for urgent and elective pacemaker implant during the COVID-19 outbreak in Northern Italy.

AIMS: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has been recently associated with lower hospitalization rates for acute coronary syndromes. Aim of the study was to investigate whether a similar behaviour is observed in admissions for urgent pacemaker implant. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1315 patients from 18 hospitals in Northern Italy with a high number of COVID-19 cases. Hospitalization rates for urgent pacemaker implant were compared between the following periods: 20 February to 20 April 2020 (case period); from 1 January to 19 February 2020 (intra-year control period); from 20 February to 20 April 2019 (inter-year control period). RESULTS: The incidence rate of urgent implants was 5.0/day in the case period, 6.0/day in the intra-year control period and 5.8/day in the inter-year control period. Incidence rate in the case period was significantly lower than both the intra-year [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = 0.040] and inter-year control periods (IRR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.95, P = 0.012); this reduction was highest after the national lockdown (IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.91, P = 0.009). The prevalence of residents in rural areas undergoing urgent pacemaker implant was lower in the case period (36%) than in both the intra-year (47%, P = 0.03) and inter-year control periods (51%, P = 0.002). Elective pacemaker implants also decreased in the case period, with the incidence rate here being 3.5/day vs. 6.4/day in the intra-year (-45%) and 6.9/day in the inter-year period (-49%). CONCLUSION: Despite severe clinical patterns, the COVID-19 outbreak has negatively affected the population presentation to Emergency Departments for bradyarrhythmias requiring urgent pacemaker implant in Northern Italy. This mainly occurred after the national lockdown and concerned patients living in rural areas.

Enhanced platelet inhibition treatment improves hypoxemia in patients with severe Covid-19 and hypercoagulability. A case control, proof of concept study.

Patients affected by severe coronavirus induced disease-2019 (Covid-19) often experience hypoxemia due to alveolar involvement and endothelial dysfunction, which leads to the formation of micro thrombi in the pulmonary capillary vessels. Both hypoxemia and a prothrombotic diathesis have been associated with more severe disease and increased risk of death. To date, specific indications to treat this condition are lacking. This was a single center, investigator initiated, compassionate use, proof of concept, case control, phase IIb study (NCT04368377) conducted in the Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit of L. Sacco University Hospital in Milano, Italy. Our objective was to explore the effects of the administration of anti-platelet therapy on arterial oxygenation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 with hypercoagulability. We enrolled five consecutive patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe respiratory failure requiring helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and a pro-thrombotic state identified as a D-dimer > 3 times the upper limit of normal. Five patients matched for age, D-dimer value and SOFA score formed the control group. Beyond standard of care, treated patients received 25 µg/Kg/body weight tirofiban as bolus infusion, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.15 µg/Kg/body weight per minute for 48 hours. Before tirofiban, patients received acetylsalicylic acid 250 mg infusion and oral clopidogrel 300 mg; both were continued at a dose of 75 mg daily for 30 days. Fondaparinux2.5 mg/day sub-cutaneous was given for the duration of the hospital stay. All controls were receiving prophylactic or therapeutic dose heparin, according to local standard operating procedures. Treated patients consistently experienced a mean (SD) reduction in A-a O2 gradient of -32.6 mmHg (61.9, P = 0.154), -52.4 mmHg (59.4, P = 0.016) and -151.1 mmHg (56.6, P = 0.011; P = 0.047 vs. controls) at 24, 48 hours and 7 days after treatment. PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased by 52 mmHg (50, P = 0.172), 64 mmHg (47, P = 0.040) and 112 mmHg (51, P = 0.036) after 24, 48 hours and 7 days, respectively. All patients but one were successfully weaned from CPAP after 3 days. This was not true for the control group. No major adverse events were observed. Antiplatelet therapy might be effective in improving the ventilation/perfusion ratio in Covid-19 patients with severe respiratory failure. The effects might be sustained by the prevention and interference on forming clots in lung capillary vessels and by modulating megakaryocytes' function and platelet adhesion. Randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these results.