Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty with or without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Era.

INTRODUCTION: The role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains a topic of debate. We sought to study the safety and feasibility of combined BAV and percutaneous coronary intervention (BAV-PCI). METHODS: Between November 2009 and July 2020, all patients undergoing BAV were identified and divided into three groups: combined BAV-PCI (group A), BAV with significant unrevascularised CAD (group B), and BAV without significant CAD (group C). Procedural outcomes and 30-day and one-year mortality were compared. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were studied (n = 84, 93, and 87 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively). The STS score was 10.2 ± 8, 13.3 ± 19, and 8.1 ± 7, p = 0.026, in groups A, B, and C, respectively. VARC-3 adjudicated complications were similar among groups (11%, 13%, and 5%, respectively, p = 0.168, respectively). Thirty-day and one-year mortality were 9.8% (n = 26) and 32% (n = 86) of the entire cohort. The differences among groups did not reach statistical significance. Using univariate Cox regression analysis, group B patients were at higher risk of dying compared to group A patients (HR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.11-2.25, p = 0.010). With multivariate Cox regression analysis, the predictors of mortality were STS score, cardiogenic shock, mode of presentation, and lack of subsequent definitive valve intervention. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis, combined BAV-PCI is safe and feasible with comparable outcomes to BAV with and without significant CAD.

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.

Using data to drive service improvement: false dawns and a promised land?

Increasing emphasis and expectation is being placed on the role of healthcare data in addressing the problems faced by the NHS. The ideal is to replace the current fragmented system of individual systems and registries with a universal, integrated data system that provides frontline staff with what they need while also allowing monitoring of services, intelligent population-based commissioning and the facilitation of quality improvement (QI) and research. With the recently published tender for the creation of a federated data platform (FDP) there is optimism that these aspirations are being addressed; however, concerns remain that the future use of healthcare data in the UK will not fulfil its potential if the current well-recognised shortcomings of existing systems and processes are not dealt with.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

Outcomes With Intermediate Left Main Disease: Analysis From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%-49%) on outcomes is unclear. METHODS: Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%-49%) and without (<25%) intermediate LMD. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary quality of life outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score. RESULTS: Among the 3699 participants who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD. Among invasive strategy participants with intermediate LMD on coronary computed tomography angiography, 49 (7.0%) had significant (≥50% stenosis) left main stenosis on invasive angiography. Patients with intermediate LMD had a higher risk of cardiovascular events in the unadjusted but not in the fully adjusted model compared with those without intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI and decreased nonprocedural MI with no significant difference for other outcomes including the primary end point. There was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment effect based on intermediate LMD status except for nonprocedural MI for which there was a greater absolute reduction with invasive management in the intermediate LMD group (-6.4% versus -2.0%; Pinteraction=0.049). The invasive strategy improved angina-related quality of life and the benefit was durable throughout follow-up without significant heterogeneity based on intermediate LMD status. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Cardiac audit, data and registries: evolution of a national programme.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world with national registries that record key statistics across a broad range of cardiovascular disorders. The British Cardiovascular Society and its affiliated groups have played a central role in the development of these registries and continue to provide clinical oversight to the present day. Seven of the UK's national registries are now integrated under the management of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) that currently holds records on nearly 6.5 million episodes of care since 1990. This represents a substantial data resource for national audit that has driven up standards of cardiovascular care in the UK with a palpable impact on patient outcomes. The registries have also spawned an impressive programme of research providing novel insights into the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease. Linkage with other datasets and international collaborations create the environment for new outputs, new opportunities for 'big data' research and new ways of performing clinical trials. As the centenary of the British Cardiac Society (now British Cardiovascular Society) approaches, its role in the development of the UK's cardiovascular audits can be counted as one of its outstanding achievements.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

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.

Indirect Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Activity and Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in England.

[Figure: see text].

Racial differences in management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: There are concerns that healthcare and outcomes of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities are disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated admission rates, treatment and mortality of BAME with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during COVID-19. METHODS: Using multisource national healthcare records, patients hospitalised with AMI in England during 1 February-27 May 2020 were included in the COVID-19 group, whereas patients admitted during the same period in the previous three consecutive years were included in a pre-COVID-19 group. Multilevel hierarchical regression analyses were used to quantify the changes in-hospital and 7-day mortality in BAME compared with whites. RESULTS: Of 73 746 patients, higher proportions of BAME patients (16.7% vs 10.1%) were hospitalised with AMI during the COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID-19. BAME patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were younger, male and likely to present with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. COVID-19 BAME group admitted with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction less frequently received coronary angiography (86.1% vs 90.0%, p<0.001) and had a longer median delay to reperfusion (4.1 hours vs 3.7 hours, p<0.001) compared with whites. BAME had higher in-hospital (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.28) and 7-day mortality (OR 1.81 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19) during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 period. CONCLUSION: In this multisource linked cohort study, compared with whites, BAME patients had proportionally higher hospitalisation rates with AMI, less frequently received guidelines indicated care and had higher early mortality during COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID-19 period. There is a need to develop clinical pathways to achieve equity in the management of these vulnerable populations.

Place and Underlying Cause of Death During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study of 3.5 Million Deaths in England and Wales, 2014 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the place and cause of death during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to assess its impact on excess mortality. METHODS: This national death registry included all adult (aged ≥18 years) deaths in England and Wales between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020. Daily deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared against the expected daily deaths, estimated with use of the Farrington surveillance algorithm for daily historical data between 2014 and 2020 by place and cause of death. RESULTS: Between March 2 and June 30, 2020, there was an excess mortality of 57,860 (a proportional increase of 35%) compared with the expected deaths, of which 50,603 (87%) were COVID-19 related. At home, only 14% (2267) of the 16,190 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, with 5963 deaths due to cancer and 2485 deaths due to cardiac disease, few of which involved COVID-19. In care homes or hospices, 61% (15,623) of the 25,611 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, 5539 of which were due to respiratory disease, and most of these (4315 deaths) involved COVID-19. In the hospital, there were 16,174 fewer deaths than expected that did not involve COVID-19, with 4088 fewer deaths due to cancer and 1398 fewer deaths due to cardiac disease than expected. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a large excess of deaths in care homes that were poorly characterized and likely to be the result of undiagnosed COVID-19. There was a smaller but important and ongoing excess in deaths at home, particularly from cancer and cardiac disease, suggesting public avoidance of hospital care for non-COVID-19 conditions.

Outcomes of COVID-19-positive acute coronary syndrome patients: A multisource electronic healthcare records study from England.

BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying cardiovascular disease and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to characterize the presenting profile and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study was conducted using multisource data from all acute NHS hospitals in England. All consecutive patients hospitalized with diagnosis of ACS with or without COVID-19 infection between 1 March and 31 May 2020 were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 12 958 patients were hospitalized with ACS during the study period, of which 517 (4.0%) were COVID-19-positive and were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. The COVID-19 ACS group were generally older, Black Asian and Minority ethnicity, more comorbid and had unfavourable presenting clinical characteristics such as elevated cardiac troponin, pulmonary oedema, cardiogenic shock and poor left ventricular systolic function compared with the non-COVID-19 ACS group. They were less likely to receive an invasive coronary angiography (67.7% vs 81.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (30.2% vs 53.9%) and dual antiplatelet medication (76.3% vs 88.0%). After adjusting for all the baseline differences, patients with COVID-19 ACS had higher in-hospital (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.41-4.42) and 30-day mortality (aOR: 6.53; 95% CI: 5.1-8.36) compared to patients with the non-COVID-19 ACS. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection was present in 4% of patients hospitalized with an ACS in England and is associated with lower rates of guideline-recommended treatment and significant mortality hazard.

Place and causes of acute cardiovascular mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the place and causes of acute cardiovascular death during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of adult (age ≥18 years) acute cardiovascular deaths (n=5 87 225) in England and Wales, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2020. The exposure was the COVID-19 pandemic (from onset of the first COVID-19 death in England, 2 March 2020). The main outcome was acute cardiovascular events directly contributing to death. RESULTS: After 2 March 2020, there were 28 969 acute cardiovascular deaths of which 5.1% related to COVID-19, and an excess acute cardiovascular mortality of 2085 (+8%). Deaths in the community accounted for nearly half of all deaths during this period. Death at home had the greatest excess acute cardiovascular deaths (2279, +35%), followed by deaths at care homes and hospices (1095, +32%) and in hospital (50, +0%). The most frequent cause of acute cardiovascular death during this period was stroke (10 318, 35.6%), followed by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (7 098, 24.5%), heart failure (6 770, 23.4%), pulmonary embolism (2 689, 9.3%) and cardiac arrest (1 328, 4.6%). The greatest cause of excess cardiovascular death in care homes and hospices was stroke (715, +39%), compared with ACS (768, +41%) at home and cardiogenic shock (55, +15%) in hospital. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an inflation in acute cardiovascular deaths, nearly half of which occurred in the community and most did not relate to COVID-19 infection suggesting there were delays to seeking help or likely the result of undiagnosed COVID-19.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in England: Insights From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI Database Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in England by analyzing procedural numbers, changes in the clinical presentation, and characteristics of patients and their clinical outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. RESULTS: Forty-four hospitals reported PCI procedures for 126 491 patients. There were ≈700 procedures performed each week before the lockdown. After the March 23, 2020 lockdown (11th/12th week in 2020), there was a 49% fall in the number of PCI procedures after the 12th week in 2020. The decrease was greatest in PCI procedures performed for stable angina (66%), followed by non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (33%). Patients after the lockdown were younger (64.5 versus 65.5 years, P<0.001) and less likely to have diabetes (20.4% versus 24.6%, P<0.001), hypertension (52.0% versus 56.8%, P=0.001), previous myocardial infarction (23.5% versus 26.7%, P=0.008), previous PCI (24.3% versus 28.3%, P=0.001), or previous coronary artery bypass graft (4.6% versus 7.2%, P<0.001) compared with before the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown in England has resulted in a significant decline in PCI procedures. Fewer patients underwent PCI for stable angina. This enabled greater capacity for urgent and emergency cases, and a reduced length of stay was seen for such patients. Significant changes in the characteristics of patients towards a lower risk phenotype were observed, particularly for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, reflecting a more conservative approach to this cohort.

Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.