Search

Background: The 2019 ESC-guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes (ESC-CCS) recommend computed tomographic coronary angiography (CTCA) or non-invasive functional imaging instead of exercise ECG as initial test to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease. Since impact and challenges of these guidelines are unknown, we studied the current utilisation of CTCA-services, status of CTCA-protocols and modeled the expected impact of these guidelines in the Netherlands. Methods and results: A survey on current practice and CTCA utilisation was disseminated to every Dutch hospital organisation providing outpatient cardiology care and modeled the required CTCA capacity for implementation of the ESC guideline, based on these national figures and expert consensus. Survey response rate was 100% (68/68 hospital organisations). In 2019, 63 hospital organisations provided CTCA-services (93%), CTCA was performed on 99 CTCA-capable CT-scanners, and 37,283 CTCA-examinations were performed. Between the hospital organisations, we found substantial variation considering CTCA indications, CTCA equipment and acquisition and reporting standards. To fully implement the new ESC guideline, our model suggests that 70,000 additional CTCA-examinations would have to be performed in the Netherlands. Conclusions: Despite high national CTCA-services coverage in the Netherlands, a substantial increase in CTCA capacity is expected to be able to implement the 2019 ESC-CCS recommendations on the use of CTCA. Furthermore, the results of this survey highlight the importance to address variations in image acquisition and to standardise the interpretation and reporting of CTCA, as well as to establish interdisciplinary collaboration and organisational alignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke, has been reported. It is unknown whether anticoagulation can prevent these complications and improve outcome. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of (prophylactic and therapeutic dose) anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications and clinical outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 17 July 2020. After systematic analysis, eight studies were included. Analysis was stratified for the start of anticoagulation before or during hospital admission. Results: There was insufficient evidence that therapeutic anticoagulation could improve the outcome in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. None of the studies demonstrated improved mortality, except for one very small Italian study. Furthermore, none of the studies showed a positive effect of anticoagulation on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy, except for two studies demonstrating an association between anticoagulation and a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'low' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. Conclusion: Analysis of the literature showed that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of anticoagulation on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been debate on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme‑2 (ACE2) expression mediating pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 infected patients. Although it has been suggested that these drugs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 infection, experimental data suggest these agents may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II-mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation and fibrosis. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of medications that influence ACE2 expression (ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and thiazolidinediones) on the outcomes of COVID-19? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 24 June 2020. After systematic analysis, nine studies were included. Results: The results were described for two different groups, an overall group in which all users were compared with non-users and a group in which only hypertensive patients were included. Within each group a distinction was made between results for ACEI/ARB use, ACEI use, ARB use, NSAID use and thiazolidinedione use. None of the studies demonstrated increased mortality in the two groups. Furthermore, none of the studies showed an effect on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'moderate' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. Conclusion: Analysis of the literature demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of ACE2 expression mediating pharmacotherapy on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospitalised COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular risk factors appear to be at risk of poor outcome. It is unknown if these patients should be considered a vulnerable group in healthcare delivery and healthcare recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the following question: In which hospitalised patients with proven COVID-19 and with underlying CVD and cardiovascular risk factors should doctors be alert to a poor outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality and intensive care unit admission. Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant search terms until 9 June 2020. After systematic analysis, 8 studies were included. Results: Based on the literature search, there was insufficient evidence that CVD and cardiovascular risk factors are significant predictors of mortality and poor outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Due to differences in methodology, the level of evidence of all studies was graded 'very low' according to the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. It is expected that in the near future, two multinational and multicentre European registries (CAPACITY-COVID and LEOSS) will offer more insight into outcome in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: This literature review demonstrated there was insufficient evidence to identify CVD and cardiovascular risk factors as important predictors of poor outcome in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. However, patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors remain vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As such, governmental and public health COVID-19 recommendations for vulnerable groups apply to these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 can cause myocardial injury in a significant proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and seems to be associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this review was to study how often and to what extent COVID-19 causes myocardial injury and whether this is an important contributor to outcome with implications for management. Methods: A literature search was performed in Medline and Embase. Myocardial injury was defined as elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels with at least one value > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit. The primary outcome measure was mortality, whereas secondary outcome measures were intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. Results: Four studies and one review were included. The presence of myocardial injury varied between 9.6 and 46.3%. Myocardial injury was associated with a higher mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 5.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.48–8.80) and more ICU admissions (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.07–6.89). The results regarding length of hospital stay were inconclusive. Conclusion: Patients with myocardial injury might be classified as high-risk patients, with probably a higher mortality rate and a larger need for ICU admission. cTn levels can be used in risk stratification models and can indicate which patients potentially benefit from early medication administration. We recommend measuring cTn levels in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital or who deteriorate during admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the potential of the automated calculation of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated myocardial positron emission tomography (PET) scans.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 20 patients who underwent both gated fluorine 18 deoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA). Gated PET data were analyzed by 2 independent programs (ie, quantitative gated single photon emission computed tomography [QGS]) originally developed for gated single photon emission computed tomography studies and functional polarmap (FPM) originally developed for the analysis of (functional) dynamic PET studies. ERNA data were used as the gold standard.Results: Both QGS and FPM left ventricular ejection fraction results correlated highly with ERNA (y = 0.90 x x-5.9, r = 0.86, P < .0001; y = 0.80 x x+3.3, r = 0.84, P < .0001, respectively). The correlation between FPM and QGS left ventricular ejection fraction results was even higher (y = 0.89 x x+8.6, r = 0.97, P < .0001). Bland-Altman plots showed systematic differences in the left ventricular ejection fraction of -9.6% +/- 7.5% (QGS vs ERNA), -3.8% +/- 7.8% (FPM vs ERNA), and -5.8% +/- 3.5% (QGS vs FPM). Further comparison of the left ventricular volumes revealed systematic difference between QGS and FPM. Our results indicate that the correlation between the different left ventricular ejection fractions shows little sensitivity to errors in the left ventricular volumes; however, the exact relationship is influenced by these errors.Conclusion: It is concluded that the automated determination of the left ventricular ejection fraction from gated PET data has significant potential; its results are highly and significantly correlated with ERNA. However, the methods presented here require additional calibration before final accuracy and clinical applicability can be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]