Complex percutaneous coronary intervention in patients unable to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the UK-ReVasc Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with disease ordinarily treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) instead underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to describe 12-month outcomes following PCI in patients who would typically have undergone CABG. METHODS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, patients who received revascularization with PCI when CABG would have been the primary choice of revascularization were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter UK-ReVasc Registry. We evaluated the following major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were enrolled across 45 PCI centers in the United Kingdom. Twelve-month follow up data were obtained for 97% of the cases. There were 9 deaths (4.3%), 5 myocardial infarctions (2.4%), 12 repeat revascularizations (5.7%), 1 stroke (0.5%), 3 major bleeds (1.4%), and no cases of stent thrombosis. No difference in the primary endpoint was observed between patients who received complete vs incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score £ 8 vs > 8) (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with patterns of coronary disease in whom CABG would have been the primary therapeutic choice outside of the pandemic, PCI was associated with acceptable outcomes at 12 months of follow-up. Contemporary randomized trials that compare PCI to CABG in such patient cohorts may be warranted.

MIRACLE2 Score Compared With Downtime and Current Selection Criterion for Invasive Cardiovascular Therapies After OHCA.

BACKGROUND: The MIRACLE2 score is the only risk score that does not incorporate and can be used for selection of therapies after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the discrimination performance of the MIRACLE2 score, downtime, and current randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruitment criteria in predicting poor neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We used the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry), a retrospective cohort from 6 centers (May 2012-September 2022). The primary outcome was poor neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (cerebral performance category 3-5). RESULTS: A total of 1,259 patients (total downtime = 25 minutes; IQR: 15-36 minutes) were included in the study. Poor outcome occurred in 41.8% with downtime <30 minutes and in 79.3% for those with downtime >30 minutes. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, MIRACLE2 had a stronger association with outcome (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.98-2.51; P < 0.0001) than zero flow (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; P = 0.013), low flow (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09; P = 0.054), and total downtime (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.03; P = 0.52). MIRACLE2 had substantially superior discrimination for the primary endpoint (AUC: 0.877; 95% CI: 0.854-0.897) than zero flow (AUC: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.577-0.642), low flow (AUC: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.695-0.754), and total downtime (AUC: 0.732; 95% CI: 0.701-0.760). For those modeled for exclusion from study recruitment, the positive predictive value of MIRACLE2 ≥5 for poor outcome was significantly higher (0.92) than the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit lesion only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.80), EUROSHOCK (Testing the value of Novel Strategy and Its Cost Efficacy In Order to Improve the Poor Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.74) and ECLS-SHOCK (Extra-corporeal life support in Cardiogenic shock) criteria (0.81) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MIRACLE2 score has superior prediction of outcome after OHCA than downtime and higher discrimination of poor outcome than the current RCT recruitment criteria. The potential for the MIRACLE2 score to improve the selection of OHCA patients should be evaluated formally in future RCTs.

The effect of ethnicity and socioeconomic status on outcomes after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - Findings from a tertiary centre in South London.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a common cause of morbidity and mortality, and ethnic variation in outcomes is recognised. We investigated ethnic and socioeconomic differences in arrest circumstances, rates of coronary artery disease, treatment, and outcomes in resuscitated OOHCA. Methods: Patients with resuscitated OOHCA of suspected cardiac aetiology were included in the King's Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry between 1-May-2012 and 31-December-2020. Results: Of 526 patients (median age 62.0 years, IQR 21.1, 74.1% male), 414 patients (78.7%) were White, 35 (6.7%) were Asian, and 77 (14.6%) were Black. Black patients had more co-existent hypertension (p = 0.007) and cardiomyopathy (p = 0.003), but less prior coronary revascularisation (p = 0.026) compared with White/Asian patients. There were no ethnic differences in location, witnesses, or bystander CPR, but Black patients had more non-shockable rhythms (p < 0.001). Black patients received less immediate coronary angiography (p < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (p < 0.001) but had lower rates of CAD (p = 0.004) than White/Asian patients. All-cause mortality at 12 months was highest amongst Black patients, followed by Asian and then White patients (57.1% vs 48.6% vs 41.3%, p = 0.032). In Black patients, excess mortality was driven by higher rates of multi-organ dysfunction but lower cardiac death than White/Asian patients, with cardiac death highest amongst Asian patients (p = 0.009). Socioeconomic status had no effect on mortality, and in a multivariable logistic regression, age, location, witnesses, and Black compared to White ethnicity were independent predictors of mortality, whilst social deprivation was not. Conclusion: In this single-centre study, Black patients had higher mortality after resuscitated OOHCA than White/Asian patients. This may be in part due to differing underlying aetiology rather than differences in arrest circumstances or social deprivation.

Intravascular lithotripsy in the treatment of coronary artery calcification in a high-risk real world population.

BACKGROUND: The DISRUPT-CAD study series demonstrated feasibility and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in selected patients, but applicability across a broad range of clinical scenarios remains unclear. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of IVL in a high-risk real-world cohort, compared to a regulatory approval cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with IVL and percutaneous coronary intervention at our center from May 2016 to April 2020 were included. Comparison was made between those enrolled in the DISRUPT-CAD series of studies to those with calcified lesions but an exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Among 177 patients treated with IVL, 142 were excluded from regulatory trials due to acute coronary syndrome presentation (47.2%), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (22.5%), chronic renal failure (12.0%), or use of mechanical circulatory support (8.5%). This clinical cohort had a higher SYNTAX score (22.6 ± 12.1 vs. 17.4 ± 9.9, p = 0.019), and more treated ACC/AHA C lesions (56.3% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.042). Rates of device success (93.7% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.208), procedural success (96.5% vs. 100.0%, p = 0.585), and minimal lumen area gain (221.2 ± 93.7% vs. 198.6 ± 152.0%, p = 0.807) were similar in both groups. The DISRUPT-CAD cohort had no in-hospital mortality, 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), or 30-day target vessel revascularization (TVR). The clinical cohort had an in-hospital mortality of 4.2%, 30-day MACE of 7.8%, and 30-day TVR of 1.5%. There was no difference in 12-month TVR (2.9% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.825). Twelve-month MACE was higher in the clinical cohort (21.1% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IVL use remains associated with high clinical efficacy, procedural success, and low complication rates in a real-world population previously excluded from regulatory approving trials.

Post-infarction ventricular septal defect: percutaneous or surgical management in the UK national registry.

AIMS: Post-infarction ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is a mechanical complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a poor prognosis. Surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment, although percutaneous closure is increasingly undertaken. METHODS AND RESUTS: Patients treated with surgical or percutaneous repair of PIVSD (2010-2021) were identified at 16 UK centres. Case note review was undertaken. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient groups were allocated based upon initial management (percutaneous or surgical). Three-hundred sixty-two patients received 416 procedures (131 percutaneous, 231 surgery). 16.1% of percutaneous patients subsequently had surgery. 7.8% of surgical patients subsequently had percutaneous treatment. Times from AMI to treatment were similar [percutaneous 9 (6-14) vs. surgical 9 (4-22) days, P = 0.18]. Surgical patients were more likely to have cardiogenic shock (62.8% vs. 51.9%, P = 0.044). Percutaneous patients were substantially older [72 (64-77) vs. 67 (61-73) years, P < 0.001] and more likely to be discussed in a heart team setting. There was no difference in long-term mortality between patients (61.1% vs. 53.7%, P = 0.17). In-hospital mortality was lower in the surgical group (55.0% vs. 44.2%, P = 0.048) with no difference in mortality after hospital discharge (P = 0.65). Cardiogenic shock [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.97 (95% confidence interval 1.37-2.84), P < 0.001), percutaneous approach [aHR 1.44 (1.01-2.05), P = 0.042], and number of vessels with coronary artery disease [aHR 1.22 (1.01-1.47), P = 0.043] were independently associated with long-term mortality. CONCLUSION: Surgical and percutaneous repair are viable options for management of PIVSD. There was no difference in post-discharge long-term mortality between patients, although in-hospital mortality was lower for surgery.

MIRACLE2 Score and SCAI Grade to Identify Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest for Immediate Coronary Angiography.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing immediate coronary angiography (CAG) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with stratification of predicted neurologic injury and cardiogenic shock on arrival to a center. BACKGROUND: The role of immediate CAG for patients with OHCA is unclear, which may in part be explained by the majority of patients dying of hypoxic brain injury. METHODS: Between May 2012 and July 2020, patients from 5 European centers were included in the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry). Patients were retrospectively classified into low vs high neurologic risk (MIRACLE2 score 0-3 vs ≥4) and degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions [SCAI] grade A vs B-E). A multivariable logistic regression analysis including immediate CAG was performed for the primary outcome of survival with good neurologic outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-six patients were included in the registry, with 405 (43.7%) in the low-risk group and 521 (56.3%) in the high-risk group. Immediate CAG was independently associated with improved survival with good neurologic outcome in the low MIRACLE2 risk group with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 11.80; 95% CI: 2.24-76.74; P = 0.048) and with SCAI grade B to E shock (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.10-9.50; P = 0.031). No subgroups, including those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and with SCAI grade B to E shock, achieved any benefit from early CAG in the high MIRACLE2 group. CONCLUSIONS: Combined classification of patients with OHCA with 12-lead electrocardiography, MIRACLE2 score 0 to 3, and SCAI grade B to E identifies a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate CAG.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of nonculprit lesions in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Outcomes from the pan-London heart attack centers.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and management of nonculprit lesions remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with nonculprit lesions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of consecutive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway activations across the heart attack center network in London, UK. Data from the study period in 2020 were compared with prepandemic data in 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 788 patients undergoing PPCI were identified, 209 (60%) in 2020 cohort and 263 (60%) in 2019 cohort had nonculprit lesions (p = .89). There was less functional assessment of the significance of nonculprit lesions in the 2020 cohort compared to 2019 cohort; in 8% 2020 cohort versus 15% 2019 cohort (p = .01). There was no difference in rates of PCI for nonculprit disease in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (31% vs 30%, p = .11). Patients in 2020 cohort underwent nonculprit lesion PCI sooner than the 2019 cohort (p < .001). At 6 months there was higher rates of unplanned revascularization (4% vs. 2%, p = .05) and repeat myocardial infarction (4% vs. 1%, p = .02) in the 2019 cohort compared to 2020 cohort. CONCLUSION: Changes to clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with reduced rates of unplanned revascularization and myocardial infarction at 6-months follow-up, and despite the pandemic, there was no difference in mortality, suggesting that it is not only safe but maybe more efficacious.

Clinical Significance of Early Echocardiographic Changes after Resuscitated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (LVSD) is common after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) and can manifest globally or regionally, although its clinical significance has not been robustly studied. This study evaluates the association between LVSD, extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) and outcome in those undergoing early echocardiography and coronary angiography after OOHCA. METHODS: Trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed in OOHCA patients on arrival to our centre between May 2012 and December 2017. Rates of cardiogenic shock and extent of CAD, respectively classified by SCAI grade and the SYNTAX score, were measured. The primary end-point was 12-month mortality. RESULTS: From 398 patients in the King's Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry (KOCAR), 266 patients (median age 61 [53-71], 76% male) underwent both TTE and coronary angiography on arrival. 96 patients (36%) had significant LVSD (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction [LVEF] <40%) and 139 (52.2%) patients had regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs). Patients with LVEF <40% had more SCAI grade C-E shock (65.3% vs. 34.5%, p <0.001) and higher 12-month mortality (55.2% vs 31.8%, p <0.001) which was more likely to be due to a cardiac aetiology (27.3% vs 5.3%, p <0.001). Patients with RWMAs had higher median SYNTAX scores (14.75 vs 7, p=0.001), culprit coronary lesions (83.5% vs. 45.3%, p <0.001) and lower 12-month mortality (29.5% vs 52%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LVEF <40% at presentation have an increased mortality, driven by cardiac aetiology death, while the presence of RWMAs is associated with a higher rate of culprit coronary lesions, representing a potentially reversible cause of the arrest, and improved survival at 1 year.

The role of mechanical support devices during percutaneous coronary intervention.

The practice of interventional cardiology has changed dramatically over the last four decades since Andreas Gruentzig carried out the first balloon angioplasty. The obvious technological improvements in stent design and interventional techniques have facilitated the routine treatment of a higher risk cohort of patients, including those with complex coronary artery disease and poor left ventricular function, and more often in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The use of mechanical cardiac support (MCS) in these settings has been the subject of intense interest, particularly over the past decade . A number of commercially available devices now add to the interventional cardiologist's armamentarium when faced with the critically unwell or high-risk patient in the cardiac catheter laboratory. The theoretical advantage of such devices in these settings is clear- an increase in cardiac output and hence mean arterial pressure, with variable effects on coronary blood flow. In doing so, they have the potential to prevent the downward cascade of ischaemia and hypoperfusion, but there is a paucity of evidence to support their routine use in any patient subset, even those presenting with cardiogenic shock. This review will discuss the use and haemodynamic effect of MCS devices during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and also examine the clinical evidence for their use in patients with cardiogenic shock, and those undergoing 'high risk' PCI.

Pneumopericardium in a patient with trisomy 21 and COVID-19 following emergency pericardiocentesis.

We describe a case of pneumopericardium following emergency pericardiocentesis in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

COVID-19 pandemic and STEMI: pathway activation and outcomes from the pan-London heart attack group.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of COVID-19 on delivery and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Furthermore, to compare clinical presentation and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with active COVID-19 against those without COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically analysed 348 STEMI cases presenting to the PPCI programme in London during the peak of the pandemic (1 March to 30 April 2020) and compared with 440 cases from the same period in 2019. Outcomes of interest included ambulance response times, timeliness of revascularisation, angiographic and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital clinical outcomes RESULTS: There was a 21% reduction in STEMI admissions and longer ambulance response times (87 (62-118) min in 2020 vs 75 (57-95) min in 2019, p<0.001), but that this was not associated with a delays in achieving revascularisation once in hospital (48 (34-65) min in 2020 vs 48 (35-70) min in 2019, p=0.35) or increased mortality (10.9% (38) in 2020 vs 8.6% (38) in 2019, p=0.28). 46 patients with active COVID-19 were more thrombotic and more likely to have intensive care unit admissions (32.6% (15) vs 9.3% (28), OR 5.74 (95%CI 2.24 to 9.89), p<0.001). They also had increased length of stay (4 (3-9) days vs 3 (2-4) days, p<0.001) and a higher mortality (21.7% (10) vs 9.3% (28), OR 2.72 (95% CI 1.25 to 5.82), p=0.012) compared with patients having PPCI without COVID-19. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that PPCI pathways can be maintained during unprecedented healthcare emergencies but confirms the high mortality of STEMI in the context of concomitant COVID-19 infection characterised by a heightened state of thrombogenicity.

Left ventricular hypertrophy diagnosed after a stroke: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a recognized clinical course of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. This interesting case showed notable difference on the electrocardiogram of a patient 4 months prior to suffering a stroke and 10 days after suffering a stroke. The pre-stroke electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation with a narrow QRS complex, while the post-stroke electrocardiogram showed marked left ventricular hypertrophy. Left ventricular hypertrophy was diagnosed using the Sokolow-Lyon indices. The development of left ventricular hypertrophy a few days after suffering a stroke has not previously been reported. CASE PRESENTATION: An 83-year-old white British woman with a background history of permanent atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and previous stroke attended the emergency department with a 2-day history of exertional dyspnea, and chest tightness. On examination, she had bibasal crepitations with a systolic murmur loudest at the apex. In-patient investigations include an electrocardiogram, blood tests, chest X-ray, contrast echocardiogram, coronary angiogram, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. An electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation, with inferolateral T wave inversion, and left ventricular hypertrophy. A chest X-ray showed features consistent with pulmonary edema. A contrast echocardiogram showed marked hypertrophy of the mid to apical left ventricle, appearance consistent with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Coronary angiography showed eccentric shelf-type plaque with non-flow-limiting stenosis in the left coronary artery main stem. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging reported findings highly suggestive of apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Our patient was treated and discharged on rivaroxaban, bisoprolol, and atorvastatin with a follow-up in the cardiomyopathy outpatient clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Electrocardiogram diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy led to the diagnosis of apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in this patient. Left ventricular hypertrophy was only evident a few days after our patient suffered a stroke. The underlying mechanisms responsible for this remain unclear. Furthermore, differential diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy should be considered in people with electrocardiogram criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging is an important diagnostic tool in identifying causes of left ventricular hypertrophy. Family screening should be recommended in patients with new diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Right Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can provide important structural information in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Although CMR is considered the standard of reference for measuring ventricular volumes and mass, the relationship between CMR findings of right ventricular (RV) function and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation has not previously been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 190 patients underwent 1.5 Tesla CMR before transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Steady-state free precession sequences were used for aortic valve planimetry and to assess ventricular volumes and mass. Semiautomated image analysis was performed by 2 specialist reviewers blinded to patient treatment. Patient follow-up was obtained from the Office of National Statistics mortality database. The median age was 81.0 (interquartile range, 74.9-85.5) years; 50.0% were women. Impaired RV function (RV ejection fraction ≤50%) was present in 45 (23.7%) patients. Patients with RV dysfunction had poorer left ventricular ejection fractions (42% versus 69%), higher indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (96 versus 40 mL), and greater indexed left ventricular mass (101 versus 85 g/m(2); P<0.01 for all) than those with normal RV function. Median follow-up was 850 days; 21 of 45 (46.7%) patients with RV dysfunction died, compared with 43 of 145 (29.7%) patients with normal RV function (P=0.035). After adjustment for significant baseline variables, both RV ejection fraction ≤50% (hazard ratio, 2.12; P=0.017) and indexed aortic valve area (hazard ratio, 4.16; P=0.025) were independently associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: RV function, measured on preprocedural CMR, is an independent predictor of mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. CMR assessment of RV function may be important in the risk stratification of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.