Consensus guidelines for interventional cardiology services delivery during covid-19 pandemic in Australia and new Zealand.

The global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented stress on healthcare systems internationally. These Health system-wide demands call for efficient utilisation of resources at this time in a fair, consistent, ethical and efficient manner would improve our ability to treat patients. Excellent co-operation between hospital units (especially intensive care unit [ICU], emergency department [ED] and cardiology) is critical in ensuring optimal patient outcomes. The purpose of this document is to provide practical guidelines for the effective use of interventional cardiology services in Australia and New Zealand. The document will be updated regularly as new evidence and knowledge is gained with time. Goals Considerations.

Nephrotoxic effects of iodixanol and iopromide in patients with abnormal renal function receiving N-acetylcysteine and hydration before coronary angiography and intervention: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of contrast agents during coronary intervention can result in nephropathy, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction. We aimed to determine whether the use of iso-osmolar iodixanol is less nephrotoxic than that of low-osmolar iopromide when patients are adequately prehydrated and have received N-acetylcysteine. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study of patients with impaired renal function undergoing a coronary interventional procedure. Primary end-point was the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) on day 2, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of > or =44 micromol/L (0.5 mg/dL) or by a relative increase of > or =25% from baseline. Secondary end-points included peak increase in serum creatinine between baseline and day 7. RESULTS: Of 191 patients recruited, 15% (95% CI: 8-22) of the patients receiving iopromide and 12% (95% CI: 5-19) of the patients receiving iodixanol developed CIN (95% CI of the difference: 13 to -7, P = 0.56). When including peak serum creatinine on day 7, CIN developed in 23% of patients receiving iopromide and in 27% of patients receiving iodixanol (95% CI of the difference: 8 to -16, P = 0.48). The peak increase in serum creatinine concentration at day 7 was similar in both groups (patients receiving iopromide, 18.4 +/- 24.4 micromol/L, vs patients receiving iodixanol, 21.9 +/- 24.2 micromol/L; P = 0.33). CONCLUSION: There remains a high incidence of CIN despite prehydration and routine use of N-acetylcysteine in patients with pre-existing renal dysfunction undergoing coronary interventional procedures. Although our study is underpowered, iodixanol was not associated with a statistically significant lower incidence of CIN when compared with iopromide.

How compliant are we with guidelines for coronary angiography in clinical practice?

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association have published guidelines for coronary angiography. We evaluated the compliance rate with these guidelines in clinical practice, its correlation to results of angiography and aimed to identify problem areas of non-compliance. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 802 consecutive referrals for coronary angiography over 5 months in 2002 in a tertiary referral hospital. These referrals were assessed by two independent reviewers blinded to the results of angiography. RESULTS: Patient age was 62 +/- 11 years (522 men, 433 inpatients, 369 day-only patients). Referrals were outside published guidelines in 34.3 and 36.2% as evaluated by the two reviewers (concordance rate 88.2%, kappa = 0.74, p < 0.001). Intraobserver agreement was 97.5%. The rate of angiography showing either normal arteries or only minor diseases (<50%) was higher for referrals outside guidelines (68.4 vs 22.6%, P < 0.001). Compliance rate was high with indications of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (99.2%) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (95.8%), valvular disease (80%) and arrhythmia (80%). Compliance rate was lower with assessment of dyspnoea or heart failure (74.3%) and before non-cardiac surgery (72.7%) and was particularly low with assessment of chest pain (53.2%). Younger age (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, P < 0.001), female sex (OR 2.67, P < 0.001), day-only procedure (OR 2.27, P < 0.001) and non-invasive cardiologist referrer (OR 1.41, P = 0.046) were independent predictors of non-compliance. CONCLUSION: Referrals for coronary angiography were outside guidelines in a significant proportion of patients. Rate of negative angiography was higher when the referrals were outside guidelines. Problematic areas of non-compliance could be identified. Measures specifically targeting these areas may be more effective in improving the overall guideline compliance in clinical practice.

Use of a quantitative point-of-care test for the detection of serum cardiac troponin T in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.

We compared a third generation quantitative cardiac troponin T (cTnT) point-of-care testing (POCT) from Roche Diagnostics with the laboratory assay (Roche Elecsys 2010 immunoassay analyser). Heparin-treated blood and serum were collected simultaneously in 133 unselected patients (mean age 62 +/- 14 years, 38% females) presenting to our hospital with possible cardiac chest pain. Results of the POCT were measured against the laboratory-based assay considered as the gold standard. There were 18 POCT positive versus 24 laboratory assay positive (> or = 0.03 ng/mL) patients. POCT was falsely negative in six patients, with values between 0.03 and 0.1 ng/mL. The POCT had a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, negative predictive value of 95% and a total accuracy of 95%; kappa = 0.831 (P < 0.001). There was good correlation between the values of POCT and the laboratory assay: Y = 1.195X + 0.002, r2 = 0.94 (P < 0.0001). Whereas cTnT levels > 0.1 mg/mL were reliably detected with this current generation of POCT, cTnT levels between 0.03 and 0.10 ng/mL were not. Future generations of devices will need to improve sensitivity to reliably risk stratify patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes.