The safety of deferred coronary angiography in COVID-19 patients with acute coronary syndrome: the Barts COVID recovered pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel pathway of deferrred invasive angiography in low-risk NSTEMI patients with concurrent COVID-19 infections; contrary to current UK guidelines recommending invasive coronary angiography in NSTEMI patients within 72 hours. METHODS: This was a single-centre, observational study of all NSTEMI patients referred for inpatient coronary angiography at Barts Heart Centre, between March 2020 and June 2022. Demographic, procedural and outcome data were collected as part of a national cardiac audit. RESULTS: 201 COVID positive NSTEMI patients were referred for angiography at Barts Heart Centre. 10 patients died from COVID related respiratory complications prior to angiography. Therefore, 191 patients underwent deferred angiography (median time 16 days from COVID diagnosis). The median GRACE score was 128 (IQR 86-153). Troponin levels were significantly elevated on initial COVID diagnosis compared to time of their procedure. 73% patients had a culprit lesion identified. 61.2% receiving PCI. Patients were followed-up for a median of 363 days (IQR 120-485 days) with MACE rates of 7.3%. This is comparable to the MACE event for NSTEMI patients (n=4529) without COVID at our institution treated during the same time-period (8.1%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of deferred coronary angiography on a COVID-Recovered pathway after a period of medical management for patients presenting with NSTEMI and concurrent COVID-19 infection. There was no adverse signal associated with the wait for angiography with similar MACE rates to the non-deferred NSTEMI cohort without COVID-19.

Thrombus Burden and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 Presenting With STEMI Across the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: It has been previously reported during the first COVID-19 outbreak that patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and concurrent COVID-19 infection have increased thrombus burden and poorer outcomes. To date, there have been no reports comparing the outcomes of COVID-19-positive STEMI patients across all waves of the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the baseline demographic, procedural, and angiographic characteristics alongside the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with STEMI and concurrent COVID-19 infection across the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a single-center, observational study of 1,269 consecutive patients admitted with confirmed STEMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (between January 3, 2020 and October 3, 2022). COVID-19-positive patients were split into 3 groups based upon the time course of the pandemic, and a comparison was made between waves. RESULTS: A total of 154 COVID-19-positive patients with STEMI were included in the present analysis and were compared with 1,115 COVID-19-negative patients. Early during the pandemic (wave 1), STEMI patients presenting with concurrent COVID-19 infection had high rates of cardiac arrest, evidence of increased thrombus burden, bigger infarcts, and worse outcomes. However, by wave 3, no differences existed in outcomes between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients, with significant differences compared with earlier COVID-19-positive patients. Poor outcomes later in the study period were predominantly in unvaccinated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes have occurred in the clinical characteristics, angiographic features, and outcomes of STEMI patients with COVID-19 infection treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the course of the pandemic. Importantly, outcomes of recent waves and in vaccinated individuals are no different to a non-COVID-19 population.

An exploration of the early discharge approach for low-risk STEMI patients following primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Recently, there has been growing interest in the early discharge strategy for low-risk patients who have undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). So far findings have suggested there are multiple advantages of shorter hospital stays, including that it could be a safe way to be more cost- and resource-efficient, reduce cases of hospital-acquired infection and boost patient satisfaction. However, there are remaining concerns surrounding safety, patient education, adequate follow-up and the generalisability of the findings from current studies which are mostly small-scale. By assessing the current research, we describe the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of early hospital discharge for STEMI and discuss the factors that determine if a patient can be considered low risk. If it is feasible to safely employ a strategy like this, the implications for healthcare systems worldwide could be extremely beneficial, particularly in lower-income economies and when we consider the detrimental impacts of the recent COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems.

Early Hospital Discharge Following PCI for Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND: Regional heart attack services have improved clinical outcomes following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by facilitating early reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early discharge after primary PCI is welcomed by patients and increases efficiency of health care. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of a novel early hospital discharge pathway for low-risk STEMI patients. METHODS: Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients who were deemed at low risk for early major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were selected for inclusion in the pathway and were successfully discharged in <48 hours. Patients were reviewed by a structured telephone follow-up at 48 hours after discharge by a cardiac rehabilitation nurse and underwent a virtual follow-up at 2, 6, and 8 weeks and at 3 months. RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 24.6 hours (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.7-30.0 hours) (prepathway median: 65.9 hours [IQR: 48.1-120.2 hours]). After discharge, all patients were contacted, with none lost to follow-up. During median follow-up of 271 days (IQR: 88-318 days), there were 2 deaths (0.33%), both caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (>30 days after discharge), with 0% cardiovascular mortality and MACE rates of 1.2%. This finding compared favorably with a historical group of 700 patients meeting pathway criteria who remained in the hospital for >48 hours (>48-hour control group) (mortality, 0.7%; MACE, 1.9%) both in unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Selected low-risk patients can be discharged safely following successful primary PCI by using a pathway that is supported by a structured, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up schedule.

Reintroduction of elective cardiac interventions in the era of COVID-19: the Barts experience.

BACKGROUND: The response to COVID-19 has required cancellation of all but the most urgent procedures; there is therefore a need for the reintroduction of a safe elective pathway. METHODS: This was a study of a pilot pathway performed at Barts Heart Centre for the admission of patients requiring elective coronary and structural procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2020). All patients on coronary and structural waiting lists were screened for procedural indications, urgency and adverse features for COVID-19 prognosis and discussed at dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Dedicated admission pathways involving preadmission isolation, additional consent, COVID-19 PCR testing and dedicated clean areas were used. RESULTS: 143 patients (101 coronary and 42 structural) underwent procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter aortic valve intervention and MitralClip) during the study period. The average age was 68.2; 74% were male; and over 93% had one or more moderate COVID-19 risk factors. All patients were COVID-19 PCR negative on admission with (8.1%) COVID-19 antibody positive (swab negative). All procedures were performed successfully with low rates of procedural complications (9.8%). At 2-week follow-up, no patients had symptoms or confirmed COVID-19 infection with significant improvements in quality if life and symptoms. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that patients undergoing coronary and structural procedures can be safely admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no patients contracting COVID-19 during their admission. Reassuringly, patients reflective of typical practice, that is, those at moderate or higher risk, were treated successfully. This pilot provides important information applicable to other settings, specialties and areas to reintroduce services safely.

Animation-supported consent for urgent angiography and angioplasty: a service improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Patient understanding of angiography and angioplasty is often incomplete at the time of consent. Language barriers and time constraints are significant obstacles, particularly in the urgent setting. We introduced digital animations to support consent and assessed the effect on patient understanding. METHODS: Multi-language animations explaining angiography and angioplasty (www.explainmyprocedure.com/heart) were introduced at nine district hospitals for patients with acute coronary syndrome before urgent transfer to a cardiac centre for their procedure. Reported understanding of the reason for transfer, the procedure, its benefits and risks in 100 consecutive patients were recorded before introduction of the animations into practice (no animation group) and in 100 consecutive patients after their introduction (animation group). Patient understanding in the two groups was compared. RESULTS: Following introduction, 83/100 patients reported they had watched the animation before inter-hospital transfer (3 declined and 14 were overlooked). The proportions of patients who understood the reason for transfer, the procedure, its benefits and risks in the no animation group were 58%, 38%, 25% and 7% and in the animation group, 85%, 81%, 73% and 61%, respectively. The relative improvement (ratio of proportions) was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.8), 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8), 2.9 (2.0 to 4.2) and 8.7 (4.2 to 18.1), respectively (p<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Use of animations explaining angiography and angioplasty is feasible before urgent inter-hospital transfer and was associated with substantial improvement in reported understanding of the procedure, its risks and its benefits. The approach is not limited to cardiology and has the potential to be applied to all specialties in medicine.