Heart valve service provision in the United Kingdom and the effect of the COVID 19 pandemic; improved but must do better. A British Heart Valve Society national survey.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient care for patients with heart valve disease (HVD) is best provided by valve clinics delivered by specialists. Modern day practice in the United Kingdom (UK) is currently poorly understood and has not been evaluated for nearly a decade. Furthermore, the COVID 19 pandemic changed the management of many chronic diseases, and how this has impacted patients with heart valve disease is unclear. METHODS: A British Heart Valve Society survey was sent to 161 hospitals throughout the UK. RESULTS: There was a general valve clinic in 46 of the 68 hospitals (68%), in 19 of 23 Heart Centres (83%) and 29 of 45 DGHs (64%). Across all settings, 3824 new patients and 17,980 follow up patients were seen in valve clinics per annum. The mean number of patients per hospital were 197 (median 150, range 48-550) for new patients and 532 (median 400, range 150-2000) for follow up. On the day echocardiography was available in 55% of valve clinics. In patients with severe HVD, serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was measured routinely in 39% of clinics and exercise testing routinely performed in 49% of clinics. A patient helpline was available in 27% of clinics. 78% of centres with a valve clinic had a valve multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT). 45% centres had an MDT co-ordinator and MDT outcomes were recorded on a database in 64%. COVID-19 had a major impact on valve services in 54 (95%) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the number of valve clinics since 2015 from 21 to 68% but the penetration is still well short of the expected 100%, meaning that valve clinics only serve a small proportion of patients requiring surveillance for HVD. COVID-19 had a major impact on the care of patients with HVD in the majority of UK centres surveyed.

Effects of hyperaemia on left ventricular longitudinal strain in patients with suspected coronary artery disease : A first-pass stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging study.

AIMS: Myocardial perfusion imaging during hyperaemic stress is commonly used to detect coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), strain rate (GLSR), myocardial early (E') and late diastolic velocities (A') with adenosine stress first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: 44 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent CMR imaging. The CMR imaging protocol included: rest/stress horizontal long-axis (HLA) cine, rest/stress first-pass adenosine perfusion and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. Rest and stress HLA cine CMR images were analysed using feature-tracking software for the assessment of myocardial deformation. The presence of perfusion defects was scored on a binomial scale. In patients with hyperaemia-induced perfusion defects, rest global longitudinal strain GLS (-16.9 ± 3.7 vs. -19.6 ± 3.4; p-value = 0.02), E' (-86 ± 22 vs. -109 ± 38; p-value = 0.02), GLSR (69 ± 31 vs. 93 ± 38; p-value = 0.01) and stress GLS (-16.5 ± 4 vs. -21 ± 3.1; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced when compared with patients with no perfusion defects. Stress GLS was the strongest independent predictor of perfusion defects (odds ratio 1.43 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.78, p-value <0.001). A threshold of -19.8% for stress GLS demonstrated 78% sensitivity and 73% specificity for the presence of hyperaemia-induced perfusion defects. CONCLUSIONS: At peak myocardial hyperaemic stress, GLS is reduced in the presence of a perfusion defect in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. This reduction is most likely caused by reduced endocardial blood flow at maximal hyperaemia because of transmural redistribution of blood flow in the presence of significant coronary stenosis.

During ablation for atrial fibrillation, is simultaneous renal artery ablation appropriate?

Over the past few decades, the mainstay of hypertension management has been pharmacological therapy; however, there is now a growing body of evidence that drug-resistant hypertension can be managed effectively by renal artery ablation. Several studies have documented the feasibility and safety of this treatment, although data regarding long-term outcomes are still emerging. Atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension commonly coexist, and recent work has demonstrated improved outcomes from catheter ablation of AF with concomitant renal artery denervation at little extra cost in terms of time and resource. The aim of this review is to explore the link between hypertension and AF, the synergistic effect of renal artery ablation on AF ablation, explain how this may work and address unanswered questions.