Search

Abstract Background The ANZACS‐QI Cardiac Implanted Device Registry (ANZACS‐QI DEVICE) collects nationwide data on cardiac implantable electronic devices in New Zealand (NZ). We used the registry to describe contemporary NZ use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods All ICD and CRT Pacemaker implants recorded in ANZACS‐QI DEVICE between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 were analyzed. Results Of 1579 ICD implants, 1152 (73.0%) were new implants, including 49.0% for primary prevention and 51.0% for secondary prevention. In both groups, median age was 62 years and patients were predominantly male (81.4% and 79.2%, respectively). Most patients receiving a primary prevention ICD had a history of clinical heart failure (80.4%), NYHA class II‐III symptoms (77.1%) and LVEF ≤35% (96.9%). In the secondary prevention ICD cohort, 88.4% were for sustained ventricular tachycardia or survived cardiac arrest from ventricular arrhythmia. Compared to primary prevention CRT Defibrillators (n = 155), those receiving CRT Pacemakers (n = 175) were older (median age 74 vs 66 years) and more likely to be female (38.3% vs 19.4%). Of the 427 (27.0%) ICD replacements (mean duration 6.3 years), 46.6% had received appropriate device therapy while 17.8% received inappropriate therapy. The ICD implant rate was 119 per million population with regional variation in implant rates, ratio of primary prevention ICD implants, and selection of CRT modality. Conclusion In contemporary NZ practice three‐quarters of ICD implants were new implants, of which half were for primary prevention. The majority met current guideline indications. Patients receiving CRT pacemaker were older and more likely to be female.

Background: Countries with a high incidence of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported reduced hospitalisations for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) during the pandemic. This study describes the impact of a nationwide lockdown on ACS hospitalisations in New Zealand (NZ), a country with a low incidence of COVID-19. Methods: All patients admitted to a NZ Hospital with ACS who underwent coronary angiography in the All NZ ACS Quality Improvement registry during the lockdown (23 March – 26 April 2020) were compared with equivalent weeks in 2015–2019. Ambulance attendances and regional community troponin-I testing were compared for lockdown and non-lockdown (1 July 2019 to 16 February 2020) periods. Findings: Hospitalisation for ACS was lower during the 5-week lockdown (105 vs. 146 per-week, rate ratio 0•72 [95% CI 0•61–0•83], p = 0.003). This was explained by fewer admissions for non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS; p = 0•002) but not ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; p = 0•31). Patient characteristics and in-hospital mortality were similar. For STEMI, door-to-balloon times were similar (70 vs. 72 min, p = 0•52). For NSTE-ACS, there was an increase in percutaneous revascularisation (59% vs. 49%, p

ObjectiveA score to distinguish Takotsubo syndrome (TS) from acute coronary syndrome would be useful to facilitate appropriate patient investigation and management. This study sought to derive and validate a simple score using demographic, clinical and ECG data to distinguish women with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from NSTE-TS.MethodsThe derivation cohort consisted of women with NSTE-TS (n=100) and NSTEMI (n=100). Logistic regression was used to derive the score using ECG values available on the postacute ward round on day 1 post-hospital admission. The score was then temporally validated in subsequent consecutive patients with NSTE-TS (n=40) and NSTEMI (n=70).ResultsThe five variables in the score and their relative weights were: T-wave inversion in ≥6 leads (+3), recent stress (+2), diabetes (−1), prior cardiovascular disease (−2) and ST-depression in any lead (−3). When calculated using ECG values obtained at admission, discrimination between conditions was very good (area under the curve (AUC) 0.87 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92). The optimal score cut-point of ≥1 to predict NSTE-TS had 73% sensitivity and 90% specificity. When applied to the validation cohort at admission, AUC was 0.82 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and positive and negative predictive values were 78% and 81%, respectively. On day 1 post-admission, AUC was 0.92 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97), with positive and negative predictive values of 77% and 91%, respectively.ConclusionThis NSTE-TS score is easy to use and may prove useful in clinical practice to distinguish women with NSTE-TS from NSTEMI. Further validation in external cohorts is needed.