Temporal Trends in In-Hospital Outcomes Following Unprotected Left-Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis of 14 522 Cases From British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database 2009 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used as a treatment option for unprotected left main stem artery (unprotected left main stem percutaneous intervention) disease. However, whether patient outcomes have improved over time is uncertain. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom national PCI database, we studied all patients undergoing unprotected left main stem percutaneous intervention between 2009 and 2017. We excluded patients who presented with ST-segment-elevation, cardiogenic shock, and with an emergency indication for PCI. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, in the study-indicated population, 14 522 unprotected left main stem percutaneous intervention procedures were performed. Significant temporal changes in baseline demographics were observed with increasing patient age and comorbid burden. Procedural complexity increased over time, with the number of vessels treated, bifurcation PCI, number of stents used, and use of intravascular imaging and rotational atherectomy increased significantly through the study period. After adjustment for baseline differences, there were significant temporal reductions in the occurrence of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for trend), in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (P<0.001 for trend), and acute procedural complications (P<0.001 for trend). In multivariable analysis examining the associates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, while age per year (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CIs, 1.01-1.03]), female sex (odds ratio, 1.47 [1.19-1.82]), 3 or more stents (odds ratio, 1.67 [05% [1.02-2.67]), and patient comorbidity were associated with higher rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, by contrast use of intravascular imaging (odds ratio, 0.56 [0.45-0.70]), and year of PCI (odds ratio, 0.63 [0.46-0.87]) were associated with lower rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Despite trends for increased patient and procedural complexity, in-hospital patient outcomes have improved after unprotected left main stem percutaneous intervention over time.

Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on a Regional Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Service During the First Wave of COVID-19.

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). This study evaluates the impact of COVID-19 on the authors' pPCI service. Methods: A retrospective study of referrals to the Belfast pPCI service between 23 March and 9 June 2020 - the period of the first full lockdown in the UK - was performed. All ECGs were reviewed alongside patient history. A pPCI turndown was deemed inappropriate if the review demonstrated that the criteria to qualify for pPCI had been met. The number of pPCIs was compared with 2019. Results: The unit had 388 referrals in 78 days, from which 134 patients were accepted for pPCI and 235 referrals were turned down. Of these, nine (4%) were deemed inappropriate. No referrals were turned down because of COVID-19. Of the nine inappropriate cases, six had pPCI following re-referral, two had routine PCI and one had takotsubo syndrome. From the accepted cohort, 85% had pPCI. In the appropriate turndown cohort, there was a final cardiovascular diagnosis in 53% (n=127) of patients, 1-year mortality was 16% (n=38), 55% (n=21) of which were due to a cardiovascular death. There was a 29% reduction in the number of pPCIs performed compared with 2019. Conclusion: During the first wave of COVID-19 there was a significant reduction in the number of pPCIs performed at the Department of Cardiology at Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. This was not due to an increase in referrals being inappropriately turned down. The majority of the cohort who had their referral turned down had a final cardiovascular diagnosis unrelated to STEMI; 1-year mortality in this group was significant.

Eosinopenia as an Adverse Marker of Clinical Outcomes in Patients Presenting with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Eosinopenia is considered a surrogate of inflammation in several disease settings. Following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, eosinopenia is presumed to be a marker of infarct severity. We sought to study the relationship between eosinopenia and infarct severity and how this relationship determined the long-term outcomes following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Six hundred and six consecutive patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions from a large volume single center were enrolled. Low eosinophil count was defined as < 40 cells/mL from samples within 2 hours after reperfusion. Primary endpoint was defined as composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, and readmission for heart failure over 3.5 years' follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of the patients had eosinopenia. Patients in the low eosinophil group had larger infarct size as measured by troponin value (2934 vs 1177 ng/L, P < .001) and left ventricle systolic function on echocardiography (48% vs 50%, P = 0.029). There was a weak correlation between eosinophil count and both troponin (r = -0.25, P < 0.001) and ejection fraction (r = 0.10, P = .017). The primary endpoint was higher in eosinopenic patients (28.8% vs. 20.4%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 2.13, P = .023). A discordance between eosinopenia and severe left ventricle systolic dysfunction was observed in 55.6% of cases. Compared with normal count, eosinopenia was associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with non-severe left ventricle dysfunction (24.1% vs 16.2%; HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.45, P = .044) but not in those with severe left ventricle dysfunction (42.3% vs. 38.9%; HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.03, P = .77) (P < .01 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Eosinopenia is an easily determined marker that reflects worse clinical outcomes over long-term follow-up.