Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

The ability of contemporary cardiologists to judge the ischemic impact of a coronary lesion visually.

BACKGROUND: Landmark trials showed that invasive pressure measurement (Fractional Flow Reserve, FFR) was a better guide to coronary stenting than visual assessment. However, present-day interventionists have benefited from extensive research and personal experience of mapping anatomy to hemodynamics. AIMS: To determine if visual assessment of the angiogram performs as well as invasive measurement of coronary physiology. METHODS: 25 interventional cardiologists independently visually assessed the single vessel coronary disease of 200 randomized participants in The Objective Randomized Blinded Investigation with optimal medical Therapy of Angioplasty in stable angina trial (ORBITA). They gave a visual prediction of the FFR and Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio (iFR), denoted vFFR and viFR respectively. Each judged each lesion on 2 occasions, so that every lesion had 50 vFFR, and 50 viFR assessments. The group consensus visual estimates (vFFR-group and viFR-group) and individual cardiologists' visual estimates (vFFR-individual and viFR-individual) were tested alongside invasively measured FFR and iFR for their ability to predict the placebo-controlled reduction in stress echo ischemia with stenting. RESULTS: Placebo-controlled ischemia improvement with stenting was predicted by vFFR-group (p < 0.0001) and viFR-group (p < 0.0001), vFFR-individual (p < 0.0001) and viFR-individual (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between the predictive performance of the group visual estimates and their invasive counterparts: p = 0.53 for vFFR vs FFR and p = 0.56 for viFR vs iFR. CONCLUSION: Visual assessment of the angiogram by contemporary experts, provides significant additional information on the amount of ischaemia which can be relieved by placebo-controlled stenting in single vessel coronary artery disease.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Development of artificial intelligence tools for invasive Doppler-based coronary microvascular assessment.

Aims: Coronary flow reserve (CFR) assessment has proven clinical utility, but Doppler-based methods are sensitive to noise and operator bias, limiting their clinical applicability. The objective of the study is to expand the adoption of invasive Doppler CFR, through the development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to automatically quantify coronary Doppler quality and track flow velocity. Methods and results: A neural network was trained on images extracted from coronary Doppler flow recordings to score signal quality and derive values for coronary flow velocity and CFR. The outputs were independently validated against expert consensus. Artificial intelligence successfully quantified Doppler signal quality, with high agreement with expert consensus (Spearman's rho: 0.94), and within individual experts. Artificial intelligence automatically tracked flow velocity with superior numerical agreement against experts, when compared with the current console algorithm [AI flow vs. expert flow bias -1.68 cm/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.13 to -1.23 cm/s, P < 0.001 with limits of agreement (LOA) -4.03 to 0.68 cm/s; console flow vs. expert flow bias -2.63 cm/s, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.52, P < 0.001, 95% LOA -8.45 to -3.19 cm/s]. Artificial intelligence yielded more precise CFR values [median absolute difference (MAD) against expert CFR: 4.0% for AI and 7.4% for console]. Artificial intelligence tracked lower-quality Doppler signals with lower variability (MAD against expert CFR 8.3% for AI and 16.7% for console). Conclusion: An AI-based system, trained by experts and independently validated, could assign a quality score to Doppler traces and derive coronary flow velocity and CFR. By making Doppler CFR more automated, precise, and operator-independent, AI could expand the clinical applicability of coronary microvascular assessment.

Impact of stenosis resistance and coronary flow capacity on fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance: a combined analysis of DEFINE-FLOW and IDEAL.

BACKGROUND: The pressure-derived parameters fractional flow reserve (FFR) and the emerging instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are the most widely applied invasive coronary physiology indices to guide revascularisation. However, approximately 15-20% of intermediate stenoses show discordant FFR and iFR, and therapeutical consensus is lacking. AIMS: We sought to associate hyperaemic stenosis resistance index, coronary flow reserve (CFR) and coronary flow capacity (CFC) to FFR/iFR discordance. METHODS: We assessed pressure and flow measurements of 647 intermediate lesions (593 patients) of two multi-centre international studies. RESULTS: FFR and iFR were discordant in 15% of all lesions (97 out of 647). FFR+/iFR- lesions had similar hyperaemic average peak velocity (hAPV), CFR and CFC as FFR-/iFR- lesions, whereas FFR-/iFR+ lesions had similar hAPV, CFR and CFC as FFR+/iFR+ lesions (p > 0.05 for all). FFR+/iFR- lesions were associated with lower baseline stenosis resistance, but not hyperaemic stenosis resistance, compared with FFR-/iFR+ lesions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance with FFR+/iFR- is characterised by maximal flow values, CFR, and CFC patterns similar to FFR-/iFR- concordance that justifies conservative therapy. Discordance with FFR-/iFR+ on the other hand, is characterised by low flow values, CFR, and CFC patterns similar to iFR+/FFR+ concordance that may benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention.

A randomized controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the COVID-19 Acute Coronary Syndrome trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer thrombotic complications. Risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and coronary disease risk factors. METHODS: A randomized controlled, open-label trial across acute hospitals (United Kingdom and Brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28 days. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. The key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, or death). RESULTS: Three hundred twenty patients from 9 centers were randomized. The trial terminated early due to low recruitment. At 30 days, there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention vs control, 11.5% vs 15%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38-1.41; p = .355). Significant bleeds were infrequent and were not significantly different between the arms (intervention vs control, 1.9% vs 1.9%; p > .999). Using a Bayesian Markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (OR, 1.46; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.88-2.37; Pr [beta > 0], 93%; adjusted OR, 1.50; 95% CrI, 0.91-2.45; Pr [beta > 0], 95%) and median time to discharge to home was 2 days shorter (95% CrI, -4 to 0; 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSION: Acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. A larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality.

A randomized controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the COVID-19 Acute Coronary Syndrome trial

BACKGROUND: patients hospitalised with covid-19 suffer thrombotic complications. risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. Objectives: to investigate efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalised with covid-19 and coronary disease risk factors. PATIENTS/METHODS: a randomised controlled open-label trial across acute hospitals (uk and brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28-days. primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. the key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, death). RESULTS: 320 patients from 9 centres were randomised. the trial terminated early due to low recruitment. at 30 days there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention: 11.5% vs control: 15%, unadjusted or 0.73, 95%ci 0.38 to 1.41, p=0.355). significant bleeds were infrequent and not significantly different between the arms (intervention: 1.9% vs control 1.9%, p>0.999). using a bayesian markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (or 1.46, 95% cri 0.88 to 95 2.37, pr(beta>0) =93%; adjusted or 1.50, 95% cri 0.91 to 2.45, pr(beta>0) =95%) and median time to discharge home was two days shorter (95% cri -4 to 0, 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSIONS: acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a 99 reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. a larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality.

Using Physiology Pullback for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guidance: Is this the Future?

Modern coronary intervention requires integration of angiographic, physiologic, and intravascular imaging. This article describes the use and techniques needed to understand coronary physiology pullback data and how use it to make revascularization decisions. The article describes instantaneous wave-free ratio, fractional flow reserve, and the data that support their use and how they differ when used in tandem disease. Common practical mistakes and errors are discussed together with a brief review of the limited published research data.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the ORBITA trial.

AIMS: Oxygen-pulse morphology and gas exchange analysis measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been associated with myocardial ischaemia. The aim of this analysis was to examine the relationship between CPET parameters, myocardial ischaemia and anginal symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and to determine the ability of these parameters to predict the placebo-controlled response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomized 1:1 to PCI or placebo in the ORBITA trial. Subjects underwent pre-randomization treadmill CPET, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and symptom assessment. These assessments were repeated at the end of a 6-week blinded follow-up period.A total of 195 patients with CPET data were randomized (102 PCI, 93 placebo). Patients in whom an oxygen-pulse plateau was observed during CPET had higher (more ischaemic) DSE score [+0.82 segments; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40 to 1.25, P = 0.0068] and lower fractional flow reserve (-0.07; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.011) compared with those without. At lower (more abnormal) oxygen-pulse slopes, there was a larger improvement of the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on DSE score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.026) and oxygen-pulse gradient (Pinteraction = 0.023)] and Seattle angina physical-limitation score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.037)]. Impaired peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, peak oxygen-pulse, and oxygen uptake efficacy slope was significantly associated with higher symptom burden but did not relate to severity of ischaemia or predict response to PCI. CONCLUSION: Although selected CPET parameters relate to severity of angina symptoms and quality of life, only an oxygen-pulse plateau detects the severity of myocardial ischaemia and predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in patients with single-vessel CAD.

A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention for the relief of stable angina without antianginal medications: design and rationale of the ORBITA-2 trial.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed for stable angina. However, the first blinded trial, ORBITA, did not show a placebo-controlled increment in exercise time in patients with single-vessel disease, at 6 weeks, on maximal antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 will assess the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on angina frequency in patients with single- or multivessel disease, at 12 weeks, on no antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomising participants with (i) angina at presentation, (ii) documented angina during the 2-week pre-randomisation symptom assessment phase, (iii) objective evidence of ischaemia, (iv) single- or multivessel disease, and (v) clinical eligibility for PCI. At enrolment, antianginals will be stopped, and angina questionnaires completed. Participants will record their symptoms on a smartphone application daily throughout the trial and will undergo exercise treadmill testing and stress echocardiography at pre-randomisation. They will then undergo coronary angiography with unblinded invasive physiology assessment. Eligible participants will then be sedated to a deep level of conscious sedation and randomised 1:1 between PCI and placebo. After the 12-week blinded follow-up period, they will return for questionnaires, exercise testing and stress echocardiography assessment. If angina becomes intolerable, antianginals will be introduced using a prespecified medication protocol. The primary outcome is an angina symptom score using an ordinal clinical outcome scale for angina. Secondary outcomes include exercise treadmill time, angina frequency, angina severity and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742050.

Phasic flow patterns of right versus left coronary arteries in patients undergoing clinical physiological assessment.

BACKGROUND: Coronary blood flow in humans is known to be predominantly diastolic. Small studies in animals and humans suggest that this is less pronounced or even reversed in the right coronary artery (RCA). AIMS: This study aimed to characterise the phasic patterns of coronary flow in the left versus right coronary arteries of patients undergoing invasive physiological assessment. METHODS: We analysed data from the Iberian-Dutch-English Collaborators (IDEAL) study. A total of 482 simultaneous pressure and flow measurements from 301 patients were included in our analysis. RESULTS: On average, coronary flow was higher in diastole both at rest and during hyperaemia in both the RCA and LCA (mean diastolic-to-systolic velocity ratio [DSVR] was, respectively, 1.85±0.70, 1.76±0.58, 1.53±0.34 and 1.58±0.43 for LCArest, LCAhyp, RCArest and RCAhyp, p<0.001 for between-vessel comparisons). Although the type of RCA dominance affected the DSVR magnitude (RCAdom=1.55±0.35, RCAco-dom=1.40±0.27, RCAnon-dom=1.35; standard deviation not reported as n=3), systolic flow was very rarely predominant (DSVR was greater than or equal to 1.00 in 472/482 cases [97.9%] overall), with equal prevalence in the LCA. Stenosis severity or microvascular dysfunction had a negligible impact on DSVR in both the RCA and LCA (DSVR x hyperaemic stenosis resistance R2 =0.018, p=0.03 and DSVR x coronary flow reserve R2 <0.001, p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary artery disease undergoing physiological assessment, diastolic flow predominance is seen in both left and right coronary arteries. Clinical interpretation of coronary physiological data should therefore not differ between the left and the right coronary systems.

Correction: Reusable snorkel masks adapted as particulate respirators.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249201.].

Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Focal and Diffuse Patterns of Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

[Figure: see text].

Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli. RESULTS: Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44-0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics.

Reusable snorkel masks adapted as particulate respirators.

INTRODUCTION: During viral pandemics, filtering facepiece (FFP) masks together with eye protection form the essential components of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. There remain concerns regarding insufficient global supply and imperfect protection offered by currently available PPE strategies. A range of full-face snorkel masks were adapted to accept high grade medical respiratory filters using bespoke-designed 3D-printed connectors. We compared the protection offered by the snorkel to that of standard PPE using a placebo-controlled respirator filtering test as well as a fluorescent droplet deposition experiment. Out of the 56 subjects tested, 42 (75%) passed filtering testing with the snorkel mask compared to 31 (55%) with a FFP3 respirator mask (p = 0.003). Amongst the 43 subjects who were not excluded following a placebo control, 85% passed filtering testing with the snorkel versus to 68% with a FFP3 mask (p = 0.008). Following front and lateral spray of fluorescence liquid particles, the snorkel mask also provided superior protection against droplet deposition within the subject's face, when compared to a standard PPE combination of FFP3 masks and eye protection (3.19x108 versus 6.81x108 fluorescence units, p<0.001). The 3D printable adaptors are available for free download online at https://www.ImperialHackspace.com/COVID-19-Snorkel-Respirator-Project/. CONCLUSION: Full-face snorkel masks adapted as particulate respirators performed better than a standard PPE combination of FFP3 mask and eye protection against aerosol inhalation and droplet deposition. This adaptation is therefore a promising PPE solution for healthcare workers during highly contagious viral outbreaks.

COVID-19 and its impact on the cardiovascular system.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 has varied across countries with varying cardiovascular manifestations. We review the cardiac presentations, in-hospital outcomes and development of cardiovascular complications in the initial cohort of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, UK. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 498 COVID-19 positive adult admissions to our institute from 7 March to 7 April 2020. Patient data were collected for baseline demographics, comorbidities and in-hospital outcomes, especially relating to cardiovascular intervention. RESULTS: Mean age was 67.4±16.1 years and 62.2% (n=310) were male. 64.1% (n=319) of our cohort had underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) with 53.4% (n=266) having hypertension. 43.2%(n=215) developed acute myocardial injury. Mortality was significantly increased in those patients with myocardial injury (47.4% vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Only four COVID-19 patients had invasive coronary angiography, two underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and one required a permanent pacemaker implantation. 7.0% (n=35) of patients had an inpatient echocardiogram. Acute myocardial injury (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.40, p=0.005) and history of hypertension (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.55, p=0.049) approximately doubled the odds of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 after other variables had been controlled for. CONCLUSION: Hypertension, pre-existing CVD and acute myocardial injury were associated with increased in-hospital mortality in our cohort of COVID-19 patients. However, only a low number of patients required invasive cardiac intervention.

Adapting the role of handheld echocardiography during the COVID-19 pandemic: A practical guide.

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered our approach to inpatient echocardiography delivery. There is now a greater focus to address key clinical questions likely to make an immediate impact in management, particularly during the period of widespread infection. Handheld echocardiography (HHE) can be used as a first-line assessment tool, limiting scanning time and exposure to high viral load. This article describes a potential role for HHE during a pandemic. We propose a protocol with a reporting template for a focused core dataset necessary in delivering an acute echocardiography service in the setting of a highly contagious disease, minimising risk to the operator. We cover the scenarios typically encountered in the acute cardiology setting and how an expert trained echocardiography team can identify such pathologies using a limited imaging format and include cardiac presentations encountered in those patients acutely unwell with COVID-19.