Search

The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported.We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death.Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy.In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Objectives This study sought to determine if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with significant coronary artery disease would produce noninferior clinical results when compared with no PCI (control arm). Background PCI in patients undergoing TAVR is not without risk, and there are no randomized data to inform clinical practice. Methods Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and significant coronary artery disease with Canadian Cardiovascular Society class ≤2 angina were randomly assigned to receive PCI or no PCI prior to TAVR. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization at 1 year. Noninferiority testing (prespecified margin of 7.5%) was performed in the intention-to-treat population. Results At 17 centers, 235 patients underwent randomization. At 1 year, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 48 (41.5%) of the PCI arm and 47 (44.0%) of the no-PCI arm. The requirement for noninferiority was not met (difference: -2.5%; 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 8.5%; 1-sided noninferiority test P = 0.067). On analysis of the as-treated population, the difference was -3.7% (1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 7.5%; P = 0.050). Mortality was 16 (13.4%) in the PCI arm and 14 (12.1%) in the no-PCI arm. At 1 year, there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute kidney injury, with higher rates of any bleed in the PCI arm (P = 0.021). Conclusions Observed rates of death and rehospitalization at 1 year were similar between PCI and no PCI prior to TAVR; however, the noninferiority margin was not met, and PCI resulted in a higher incidence of bleeding. (Assessing the Effects of Stenting in Significant Coronary Artery Disease Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation; ISRCTN75836930 )

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Aims To assess the recording and accuracy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospital admissions between two electronic health record databases within an English cancer population over time and understand the factors that affect case-ascertainment. Methods and results We identified 112 502 hospital admissions for AMI in England 2010–2017 from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) disease registry and hospital episode statistics (HES) for 95 509 patients with a previous cancer diagnosis up to 15 years prior to admission. Cancer diagnoses were identified from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD). We calculated the percentage of AMI admissions captured by each source and examined patient characteristics associated with source of ascertainment. Survival analysis assessed whether differences in survival between case-ascertainment sources could be explained by patient characteristics. A total of 57 265 (50.9%) AMI admissions in patients with a prior diagnosis of cancer were captured in both MINAP and HES. Patients captured in both sources were younger, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and had better prognosis, with lower mortality rates up to 9 years after AMI admission compared with patients captured in only one source. The percentage of admissions captured in both data sources improved over time. Cancer characteristics (site, stage, and grade) had little effect on how AMI was captured. Conclusion MINAP and HES define different populations of patients with AMI. However, cancer characteristics do not substantially impact on case-ascertainment. These findings support a strategy of using multiple linked data sources for observational cardio-oncological research into AMI.

Aims Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) greatly increases the risk of ischaemic stroke. For people with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides a non-pharmacological management alternative. The aim of this study was to measure the procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of LAAO for AF in a UK setting. Methods and results This was a prospective, single-armed registry of patients with AF for whom anticoagulation was unsuitable. Registry data were collected between October 2014 and April 2018 and linked to routine data sources for follow-up. Data from 583 LAAO procedures were entered into the registry, of which 537 (from 525 patients) were eligible for inclusion (median CHA2DS2-VASc score 4). A closure device was successfully implanted in 93.4% of cases, with a procedural success rate (device implanted without major complication) of 88.9%. Five patients (1.0%) died in hospital. During follow-up [median 729 (Q1:Q3, 523:913) days] 45 patients experienced neurological events; 33 of which were ischaemic. The ischaemic neurological event rate was 3.3 (1.6–5.0)% at 1 year (n = 387) and 7.0 (4.3–9.6)% at 2 years (n = 196). There were significant improvements in overall patient health (via Visual Analogue Scale) measured at 6 weeks and 6 months, but no significant improvements observed in patient utility over time. Conclusion The findings of our study suggest that LAAO is not without procedural risk, but that this risk may be justified in high-risk patients with AF who cannot take an anticoagulant. Moreover, the data do not provide support for more widespread use of LAAO as the complication rate was relatively high and would be difficult to justify in many patients with AF who tolerate anticoagulation.

Increasing emphasis and expectation is being placed on the role of healthcare data in addressing the problems faced by the NHS. The ideal is to replace the current fragmented system of individual systems and registries with a universal, integrated data system that provides frontline staff with what they need while also allowing monitoring of services, intelligent population-based commissioning and the facilitation of quality improvement (QI) and research. With the recently published tender for the creation of a federated data platform (FDP) there is optimism that these aspirations are being addressed; however, concerns remain that the future use of healthcare data in the UK will not fulfil its potential if the current well-recognised shortcomings of existing systems and processes are not dealt with.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a high death toll. We aimed to describe the place and cause of death during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis national death registry included all adult (aged ≥18 years) deaths in England and Wales between 1st January 2014 and 30th June 2020. Analyses were based upon ICD-10 codes corresponding to the underlying cause of death as stated on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death. Daily deaths during COVID-19 pandemic were compared against the expected daily deaths estimated using Farrington surveillance algorithm for daily historical data between 2014 and 2020, by place and cause of death.FindingsBetween 2nd March and 30th June 2020, there was an excess mortality of 57,860 (a proportional increase of 35%) compared with the expected deaths, of which 50,603 (86.2%) were COVID-19 related. Almost half the excess deaths occurred in care homes (25,611 deaths) where deaths were 55% higher than expected. One fifth of the excess deaths occurred in hospital (15,938 deaths; a proportional increase of 21%) with the remainder occurring at home (16,190 deaths; a proportional increase of 39%). At home, only 14% of 16,190 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, with 5,963 deaths due to cancer and 2,485 deaths due to cardiac disease, very few of which involved COVID-19. In care homes or hospices, 61% of the 25,611 excess deaths were related to COVID-19, 5,539 of which were due to respiratory disease and most of these (4,315 deaths) involved COVID-19. In hospital, there were 16,174 fewer deaths than expected which did not involve COVID-19, and there were 4,088 fewer deaths due to cancer and 1,398 fewer deaths due to cardiac disease than expected.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in the absolute numbers of deaths occurring at home and care homes. There was a huge burden of excess deaths occurring in care homes, which were poorly characterised, and were likely to be, at least in part, the result of undiagnosed COVID-19. There was a smaller but important and ongoing excess in deaths at home, particularly from cancer and cardiac disease, which suggests avoidance of hospital care for non-COVID-19 conditions.FundingThe study is unfunded.

Background: Patients with significant (≥50%) left main disease (LMD) have a high risk of cardiovascular events, and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (stenosis, 25%–49%) on outcomes is unclear. Methods: Randomized ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline were categorized into those with (25%–49%) and without ( Results: Among the 3699 participants who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD. Among invasive strategy participants with intermediate LMD on coronary computed tomography angiography, 49 (7.0%) had significant (≥50% stenosis) left main stenosis on invasive angiography. Patients with intermediate LMD had a higher risk of cardiovascular events in the unadjusted but not in the fully adjusted model compared with those without intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI and decreased nonprocedural MI with no significant difference for other outcomes including the primary end point. There was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment effect based on intermediate LMD status except for nonprocedural MI for which there was a greater absolute reduction with invasive management in the intermediate LMD group (−6.4% versus −2.0%; P interaction =0.049). The invasive strategy improved angina-related quality of life and the benefit was durable throughout follow-up without significant heterogeneity based on intermediate LMD status. Conclusions: In the ISCHEMIA trial, there was no meaningful heterogeneity of treatment benefit from an invasive strategy regardless of intermediate LMD status except for a greater absolute risk reduction in nonprocedural MI with invasive management in those with intermediate LMD. An invasive strategy increased procedural MI, reduced nonprocedural MI, and improved angina-related quality of life. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Background: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, −12.1% [95% CI, −22.6 to −1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, −1.6% [95% CI, −3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy–associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Objectives The authors used the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) national percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database to explore temporal changes in the use of intravascular imaging for unprotected left main stem PCI (uLMS PCI), defined the associates of imaging use, and correlate clinical outcomes including survival with imaging use. Background Limited registry data support the use of intravascular imaging during uLMS PCI to improve outcomes. Methods Data were analyzed from 11,264 uLMS PCI procedures performed in England and Wales between 2007 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify associates of imaging use. Propensity matching created 5,056 pairs of subjects with and without imaging and logistic regression was performed to quantify the association between imaging and outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression to identify the independent predictors of 12-month mortality was performed. Results Imaging use increased from 30.2% in 2007 to 50.2% in 2014 (p for trend Conclusions The observed lower mortality with use of intravascular imaging to guide uLMS PCI justifies the undertaking of a large-scale randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with underlying cardiovascular disease and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to characterize the presenting profile and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and COVID‐19 infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study was conducted using multisource data from all acute NHS hospitals in England. All consecutive patients hospitalized with diagnosis of ACS with or without COVID‐19 infection between 1 March and 31 May 2020 were included. The primary outcome was in‐hospital and 30‐day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 12 958 patients were hospitalized with ACS during the study period, of which 517 (4.0%) were COVID‐19‐positive and were more likely to present with non‐ST‐elevation acute myocardial infarction. The COVID‐19 ACS group were generally older, Black Asian and Minority ethnicity, more comorbid and had unfavourable presenting clinical characteristics such as elevated cardiac troponin, pulmonary oedema, cardiogenic shock and poor left ventricular systolic function compared with the non‐COVID‐19 ACS group. They were less likely to receive an invasive coronary angiography (67.7% vs 81.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (30.2% vs 53.9%) and dual antiplatelet medication (76.3% vs 88.0%). After adjusting for all the baseline differences, patients with COVID‐19 ACS had higher in‐hospital (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.41–4.42) and 30‐day mortality (aOR: 6.53; 95% CI: 5.1–8.36) compared to patients with the non‐COVID‐19 ACS. CONCLUSION: COVID‐19 infection was present in 4% of patients hospitalized with an ACS in England and is associated with lower rates of guideline‐recommended treatment and significant mortality hazard.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate national temporal trends in same-day discharge (SDD) and compare clinical outcomes with those among patients admitted for overnight stay undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina. Background Overnight observation has been the standard of care following PCI, with no previous national analyses around changes in practice or clinical outcomes from health care systems in which SDD is the predominant practice for elective PCI. Methods Data from 169,623 patients undergoing elective PCI between 2007 and 2014 were obtained from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry. Multiple logistic regressions and the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society risk model were used to study the association between SDD and 30-day mortality. Results The rate of SDD increased from 23.5% in 2007 to 57.2% in 2014, with center SDD median prevalence varying from 17% (interquartile range: 6% to 39%) in 2007 to 66% (interquartile range: 45% to 77%) in 2014. The largest independent association with SDD was observed for radial access (odds ratio: 1.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.65 to 1.74; p Conclusions SDD has become the predominant model of care among elective PCI cases in the United Kingdom, in increasingly complex patients. SDD appears to be safe, with 30-day mortality rates in line with those calculated using the national risk prediction score used for public reporting. Changes toward SDD practice have important economic implications for health care systems worldwide.

Objectives\ud This study aims to examine in-hospital gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, its predictors and clinical outcomes, including long-term outcomes, in a national cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in England and Wales.\ud \ud Background\ud GI bleeding remains associated with significant morbidity, mortality and socioeconomic burden.\ud \ud Methods\ud We examined the temporal changes in in-hospital GI bleeding in a national cohort of patients undergoing PCI between 2007-2014 in England and Wales, its predictors and prognostic consequences. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors between GI bleeding and 30-day mortality. Survival analysis was performed comparing patients with, and without, GI bleeding. \ud \ud Results\ud There were 480 in-hospital GI bleeds in 549,298 patients (0.09%). Overall, rates of GI bleeding remained stable over time but a significant decline was observed for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The strongest predictors of bleeding events were STEMI - odds ratio (OR) 7.28 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.82-11.00), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use OR 3.42 (95% CI 2.76-4.24) and use of circulatory support OR 2.65 (95% CI 1.90-3.71). Anti-platelets/coagulants (clopidogrel, prasugrel and warfarin) were not independently associated with GI bleeding. GI bleeding was independently associated with a significant increase in all-cause 30-day mortality (OR 2.08 (1.52-2.83)). Patients with in-hospital GI bleed who survived to 30-days had increased all-cause mortality risk at 1 year compared to non-bleeders (HR 1.49 (1.07-2.09)).\ud \ud Conclusions\ud In-hospital GI bleeding following PCI is rare but is a clinically important event associated with increased 30-day and long-term mortality.

Objectives Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database, temporal trends, predictors, and outcomes of radial access (RA) versus femoral access (FA) for unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention (LMS-PCI) were studied. Background Data on arterial access site for LMS-PCI are poorly defined. Methods Data were analyzed from 19,482 LMS-PCI procedures performed in England and Wales between 2007 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access site choice and its association with outcomes. Results The frequency of FA use fell from 77.7% in 2007 to 31.7% in 2014 (p Conclusions In contemporary practice, the radial artery is the predominant access site for unprotected LMS-PCI, and its use is associated with shorter length of stay, less vascular complications, and less major bleeding than femoral access.

Aims We hypothesized that a decline in admissions with heart failure during COVID-19 pandemic would lead to a reciprocal rise in mortality for patients with heart failure in the community. Methods and results We used National Heart Failure Audit data to identify 36 974 adults who had a hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of heart failure between February and May in either 2018, 2019, or 2020. Hospital admissions for heart failure in 2018/19 averaged 160/day but were much lower in 2020, reaching a nadir of 64/day on 27 March 2020 [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–0.42]. The proportion discharged on guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies was similar in 2018/19 compared to the same period in 2020. Between 1 February–2020 and 31 May 2020, there was a 29% decrease in hospital deaths related to heart failure (IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67–0.75; estimated decline of 448 deaths), a 31% increase in heart failure deaths at home (IRR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.24–1.39; estimated excess 539), and a 28% increase in heart failure deaths in care homes and hospices (IRR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18–1.40; estimated excess 189). All-cause, inpatient death was similar in the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods [odds ratio (OR): 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94–1.10]. After hospital discharge, 30-day mortality was higher in 2020 compared to 2018/19 (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.38–1.78). Conclusion Compared with the rolling daily average in 2018/19, there was a substantial decline in admissions for heart failure but an increase in deaths from heart failure in the community. Despite similar rates of prescription of guideline-recommended therapy, mortality 30 days from discharge was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Aortic stenosis requires timely treatment with either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to investigate the indirect impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on national SAVR and TAVR activity and outcomes. Methods: The UK TAVR Registry and the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit were used to identify all TAVR and SAVR procedures in England, between January 2017 and November 2020. The number of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), AVR+coronary artery bypass graft surgery, AVR+other surgery, and TAVR procedures per month was calculated. Separate negative binomial regression models were fit to monthly procedural counts, with functions of time as covariates, to estimate the expected change in activity during COVID-19. Results: We included 15 142 TAVR cases, 13 357 isolated AVR cases, 8550 AVR+coronary artery bypass graft cases, and 6773 AVR+other cases. Before March 2020 (UK lockdown), monthly TAVR activity was rising, with a slight decrease in the SAVR activity during 2019. We observed a rapid and significant drop in TAVR and SAVR activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for elective cases. Cumulatively, over the period March to November 2020, we estimated an expected 4989 (95% CI, 4020–5959) cases of aortic stenosis who have not received treatment. Conclusions: This study has demonstrated a significant decrease in TAVR and SAVR activity in England following the COVID-19 outbreak. This situation should be monitored closely, to ensure that monthly activity rapidly returns to expected levels. There is potential for significant backlog in the near-to-medium term and potential for increased mortality in this population.

Background There are limited data on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on left main (LM) coronary revascularisation activity, choice of revascularisation strategy, and post‐procedural outcomes. Methods All patients with LM disease (≥50% stenosis) undergoing coronary revascularisation in England between January 1, 2017 and August 19, 2020 were included (n = 22,235), stratified by time‐period (pre‐COVID: 01/01/2017–29/2/2020; COVID: 1/3/2020–19/8/2020) and revascularisation strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Logistic regression models were performed to examine odds ratio (OR) of 1) receipt of CABG (vs. PCI) and 2) in‐hospital and 30‐day postprocedural mortality, in the COVID‐19 period (vs. pre‐COVID). Results There was a decline of 1,354 LM revascularisation procedures between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 compared with previous years' (2017–2019) averages (−48.8%). An increased utilization of PCI over CABG was observed in the COVID period (receipt of CABG vs. PCI: OR 0.46 [0.39, 0.53] compared with 2017), consistent across all age groups. No difference in adjusted in‐hospital or 30‐day mortality was observed between pre‐COVID and COVID periods for both PCI (odds ratio (OR): 0.72 [0.51. 1.02] and 0.83 [0.62, 1.11], respectively) and CABG (OR 0.98 [0.45, 2.14] and 1.51 [0.77, 2.98], respectively) groups. Conclusion LM revascularisation activity has significantly declined during the COVID period, with a shift towards PCI as the preferred strategy. Postprocedural mortality within each revascularisation group was similar in the pre‐COVID and COVID periods, reflecting maintenance in quality of outcomes during the pandemic. Future measures are required to safely restore LM revascularisation activity to pre‐COVID levels.

Background and objectiveThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is uncertain. We aimed to compare quality of AMI care in England and Wales during and before the COVID-19 pandemic using the 2020 European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care quality indicators (QIs) for AMI.MethodsCohort study of linked data from the AMI and the percutaneous coronary intervention registries in England and Wales between 1 January 2017 and 27 May 2020 (representing 236 743 patients from 186 hospitals). At the patient level, the likelihood of attainment for each QI compared with pre COVID-19 was calculated using logistic regression. The date of the first national lockdown in England and Wales (23 March 2020) was chosen for time series comparisons.ResultsThere were 10 749 admissions with AMI after 23 March 2020. Compared with before the lockdown, patients admitted with AMI during the first wave had similar age (mean 68.0 vs 69.0 years), with no major differences in baseline characteristics (history of diabetes (25% vs 26%), renal failure (6.4% vs 6.9%), heart failure (5.8% vs 6.4%) and previous myocardial infarction (22.9% vs 23.7%)), and less frequently had high Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk scores (43.6% vs 48.6%). There was an improvement in attainment for 10 (62.5%) of the 16 measured QIs including a composite QI (43.8% to 45.2%, OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) during, compared with before, the lockdown.ConclusionDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales, quality of care for AMI as measured against international standards did not worsen, but improved modestly.

ObjectiveThere are concerns that healthcare and outcomes of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities are disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated admission rates, treatment and mortality of BAME with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during COVID-19.MethodsUsing multisource national healthcare records, patients hospitalised with AMI in England during 1 February–27 May 2020 were included in the COVID-19 group, whereas patients admitted during the same period in the previous three consecutive years were included in a pre-COVID-19 group. Multilevel hierarchical regression analyses were used to quantify the changes in-hospital and 7-day mortality in BAME compared with whites.ResultsOf 73 746 patients, higher proportions of BAME patients (16.7% vs 10.1%) were hospitalised with AMI during the COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID-19. BAME patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were younger, male and likely to present with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. COVID-19 BAME group admitted with non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction less frequently received coronary angiography (86.1% vs 90.0%, pConclusionIn this multisource linked cohort study, compared with whites, BAME patients had proportionally higher hospitalisation rates with AMI, less frequently received guidelines indicated care and had higher early mortality during COVID-19 period compared with pre-COVID-19 period. There is a need to develop clinical pathways to achieve equity in the management of these vulnerable populations.

Background Evidence supports an excess of deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report the incidence and mortality of thrombo-embolic events (TE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Multi-sourced nationwide cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with TE and deaths from TE in England (hospital and community) between 1st February 2018 and 31st July 2020. Relative risks, adjusted for age, sex, atrial fibrillation, co-morbidities and time trend comparing before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were estimated using Poisson regression. Findings Of 272,423 patients admitted with TE to 195 hospitals, 86,577 (31.8%) were admitted after 2nd March 2020 (first COVID-19 death in the UK). The incidence of TE hospitalised increased during the COVID-19 pandemic from 1090 to 1590 per 100,000 (absolute risk change 45.9% [95% CI 45.1–46.6%], adjusted relative risk [ARR] 1.43 [95% CI 1.41–1.44]) driven particularly by pulmonary embolism; 1.49, 95% CI 1.46–1.52. TE were more frequent among those with COVID-19; 1.9% vs. 1.6%, absolute risk change 21.7%, 95% CI 21.0–22.4%, ARR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18–1.22. There was an increase in the overall mortality from TE during the pandemic (617, 6.7% proportional increase compared with the historical baseline), with more TE deaths occurring in the community compared with the historical rate (44% vs. 33%). Interpretation The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an increase in the incidence of hospitalised TE. There were more deaths from TE in the community highlighting a number of mechanisms including the hypercoagulable state associated with COVID-19 infection and potential impact of delays in seeking help. Research in context Evidence before this study We searched PubMed on 16 November 2020 for articles that documented the incidence and mortality of thrombo-embolic events (TE) during the COVID-19 pandemic using the search terms “COVID-19” OR “Coronavirus*” OR “2019-nCOV” OR “SARS-CoV” AND (“Thromboembolism” OR “Venous Thromboembolism” OR “thromboembol*”) with no language or time restrictions. The majority of data on TE in COVID-19 pertains to hospitalised patients from retrospective cohort studies. One study found that TE in hospitalised patients was associated with an increased mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio 1.82; 95% CI 1.54–2.15). A systematic review and meta-analysis of 35 studies in 9249 hospitalised patients calculated an overall pooled incidence of TE of 17.8% (95% CI: 9.9–27.4%), rising to 22.9% (95% CI: 14.5–32.4%) in patients admitted to intensive care (ICU). The most contemporary data are from a cohort of 1114 patients (715 outpatient, 399 hospitalised, 170 admitted to ICU). With robust COVID-19-specific therapies and widespread thromboprophylaxis the prevalence of venous TE in ICU patients was reported as 7% (n = 12) when catheter-/device-related events were excluded, and among the outpatients there was no TE reported. No published studies have used nationwide data to investigate TE during the pandemic or the effect of the pandemic on outcomes of patients with TE but without Covid-19. Added value of this study This retrospective multi-sourced nationwide unlinked cohort study compares the overall incidence and mortality of TE prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found an increased incidence of TE despite only a small proportion having a diagnosis of COVID-19. This may highlight the lack of testing, particularly in the community during the initial phase of the pandemic, and the possibility of other factors contributing to TE risk, such as decreased daily activity mandated by home quarantine and alterations in medication concordance. Mortality from TE was higher in the community during the pandemic and this highlights that adverse societal effects of the pandemic, such as aversion to seeking medical assessment, may precipitate worse outcomes related to TE. Implications of all the available evidence Evidence suggests that COVID-19 produces a hypercoagulable state and thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalised patients to prevent excess mortality from TE. Whether to anticoagulate non-hospitalised ambulatory patients with COVID-19 will be answered by ongoing trials. Clinicians should consider the risks posed by decreased daily activity and fear of medical contact, and provide appropriate advice to patients., Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image

Background The objective of the study was to identify any changes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in England by analysing procedural numbers, clinical characteristics and patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.\ud \ud Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society-National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research database. Analysis was restricted to 44 hospitals that reported contemporaneous activity on PCI. Only patients with primary PCI for STEMI were included in the analysis.\ud \ud Results A total of 34 127 patients with STEMI (primary PCI 33 938, facilitated PCI 108, rescue PCI 81) were included in the study. There was a decline in the number of procedures by 43% (n=497) in April 2020 compared with the average monthly procedures between 2017 and 2019 (n=865). For all patients, the median time from symptom to hospital showed increased after the lockdown (150 (99–270) vs 135 (89–250) min, p=0.004) and a longer door-to-balloon time after the lockdown (48 (21–112) vs 37 (16–94) min, p

Background: In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, all-cause mortality was similar in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) randomized to invasive (INV) and conservative (CON) management strategies. This analysis details specific causes of cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV mortality by treatment group. Methods: In ISCHEMIA, 289 deaths occurred after a median follow-up of 3.2 years; 145 (5.6%) in INV and 144 (5.6%) in CON (HR 1.05, CI 0.83-1.32). Deaths were adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV with or without a CV contributor or undetermined. The protocol defined CV death as deaths from CV causes, non-CV causes with CV contributor, and cause undetermined; non-CV death was defined as death from non-CV causes without a CV contributor. Multivariable analyses were used to identify factors associated with cause-specific death. Results: CV death was similar between groups [INV 92 (3.6%), CON 111 (4.3%); HR 0.87 (CI 0.66, 1.15)], but INV had more non-CV death [INV 53 (2.0%), CON 33 (1.3%); HR 1.63 (CI 1.06, 2.52)]; fewer undetermined deaths [INV 12 (0.5%) and CON 26 (1.0%); HR 0.48 (0.24, 0.95)] and more malignancy deaths [INV 41 (1.6%), CON 20 (0.8%); HR 2.11 (1.24, 3.61)]. In multivariable analysis, risk factors associated with CV death were age [HR 1.42 (CI 1.19-1.70) per 10-year increase], diabetes [HR 1.39 (CI 1.03-1.87)], history of heart failure [HR 1.96 (CI 1.33-2.91)], and eGFR [HR 1.18 (CI 1.11-1.26) per 5-ml/min decrease below 80ml/min]. Factors associated with non-CV death were age [HR 2.31 (CI 1.75-3.03) per 10-year increase] and randomization to INV [HR 1.76 (CI 1.13-2.75)]. Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, all-cause mortality was similar for the INV and CON strategies. Excess non-CV deaths in INV with a higher number of deaths from malignancy but a higher number of undetermined deaths in CON requires further evaluation.

Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in England by analyzing procedural numbers, changes in the clinical presentation, and characteristics of patients and their clinical outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. Results: Forty-four hospitals reported PCI procedures for 126 491 patients. There were ≈700 procedures performed each week before the lockdown. After the March 23, 2020 lockdown (11th/12th week in 2020), there was a 49% fall in the number of PCI procedures after the 12th week in 2020. The decrease was greatest in PCI procedures performed for stable angina (66%), followed by non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (33%). Patients after the lockdown were younger (64.5 versus 65.5 years, P P P =0.001), previous myocardial infarction (23.5% versus 26.7%, P =0.008), previous PCI (24.3% versus 28.3%, P =0.001), or previous coronary artery bypass graft (4.6% versus 7.2%, P Conclusions: The lockdown in England has resulted in a significant decline in PCI procedures. Fewer patients underwent PCI for stable angina. This enabled greater capacity for urgent and emergency cases, and a reduced length of stay was seen for such patients. Significant changes in the characteristics of patients towards a lower risk phenotype were observed, particularly for non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, reflecting a more conservative approach to this cohort.

Background Studies have reported significant reduction in acute myocardial infarction–related hospitalizations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. However, whether these trends are associated with increased incidence of out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in this population is unknown. Methods and Results Acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations with OHCA during the COVID‐19 period (February 1–May 14, 2020) from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and British Cardiovascular Intervention Society data sets were analyzed. Temporal trends were assessed using Poisson models with equivalent pre–COVID‐19 period (February 1–May 14, 2019) as reference. Acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations during COVID‐19 period were reduced by >50% (n=20 310 versus n=9325). OHCA was more prevalent during the COVID‐19 period compared with the pre–COVID‐19 period (5.6% versus 3.6%), with a 56% increase in the incidence of OHCA (incidence rate ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.39–1.74). Patients experiencing OHCA during COVID‐19 period were likely to be older, likely to be women, likely to be of Asian ethnicity, and more likely to present with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. The overall rates of invasive coronary angiography (58.4% versus 71.6%; P P =0.05) in those with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. The adjusted in‐hospital mortality probability increased from 27.7% in February 2020 to 35.8% in May 2020 in the COVID‐19 group ( P Conclusions In this national cohort of hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction, we observed a significant increase in incidence of OHCA during COVID‐19 period paralleled with reduced access to guideline‐recommended care and increased in‐hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To address the issue of limited national data on the prevalence and distribution of underlying conditions among COVID-19 deaths between sexes and across age groups.PATIENTS AND METHODS: All adult (≥18 years) deaths recorded in England and Wales (March 1, 2020, to May 12, 2020) were analyzed retrospectively. We compared the prevalence of underlying health conditions between COVID and non-COVID-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) of COVID-19 compared with other primary causes of death, stratified by sex and age group.RESULTS: Of 144,279 adult deaths recorded during the study period, 36,438 (25.3%) were confirmed COVID deaths. Women represented 43.2% (n=15,731) of COVID deaths compared with 51.9% (n=55,980) in non-COVID deaths. Overall, COVID deaths were younger than non-COVID deaths (82 vs 83 years). ASMR of COVID-19 was higher than all other common primary causes of death, across age groups and sexes, except for cancers in women between the ages of 30 and 79 years. A linear relationship was observed between ASMR and age among COVID-19 deaths, with persistently higher rates in men than women across all age groups. The most prevalent reported conditions were hypertension, dementia, chronic lung disease, and diabetes, and these were higher among COVID deaths. Pre-existing ischemic heart disease was similar in COVID (11.4%) and non-COVID (12%) deaths.CONCLUSION: In a nationwide analysis, COVID-19 infection was associated with higher age-standardized mortality than other primary causes of death, except cancer in women of select age groups. COVID-19 mortality was persistently higher in men and increased with advanced age.

Background\ud Risk factors for further bleeding and ischemic events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) often overlap. Little is known about sex-based differences in the management and outcomes of ACS patients according to their combined bleeding-ischemic risk.\ud \ud Methods\ud All ACS hospitalizations in the United Kingdom (2010-2017) were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by sex and bleeding-ischemic risk combination (using CRUSADE and GRACE scores). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine association between risk-groups and 1) receipt of guideline-recommended management and 2) in-hospital outcomes.\ud \ud Results\ud Of 584,360 patients, a third of males (32.3%) and females (32.6%) were in the dual high-risk group (High CRUSADE- High GRACE). In comparison to the dual low-risk group (Low CRUSADE-Low GRACE), the dual high-risk patients of both sexes were 59-83% less likely to receive coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 31-34% less likely to receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on discharge, with a significant increase in odds of MACE (8-fold), all-cause and cardiac mortality (30 to 40-fold), and bleeding (40-43%). The greatest difference in management and clinical outcomes between sexes was found in the dual-high risk group where females were less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapy (PCI and DAPT), compared to males, and were more likely to experience MACE, all-cause and cardiac mortality.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud ACS patients with dual high-risk for bleeding and recurrent ischemia, especially females, are less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapy and experience significantly worse outcomes. Novel strategies are needed to effectively manage this highly prevalent, complex patient group and address the under-treatment of females.

Summary Background Several countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have reported a substantial drop in the number of patients attending the emergency department with acute coronary syndromes and a reduced number of cardiac procedures. We aimed to understand the scale, nature, and duration of changes to admissions for different types of acute coronary syndrome in England and to evaluate whether in-hospital management of patients has been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We analysed data on hospital admissions in England for types of acute coronary syndrome from Jan 1, 2019, to May 24, 2020, that were recorded in the Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care database. Admissions were classified as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), myocardial infarction of unknown type, or other acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina). We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). We calculated the numbers of weekly admissions and procedures undertaken; percentage reductions in weekly admissions and across subgroups were also calculated, with 95% CIs. Findings Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome declined from mid-February, 2020, falling from a 2019 baseline rate of 3017 admissions per week to 1813 per week by the end of March, 2020, a reduction of 40% (95% CI 37–43). This decline was partly reversed during April and May, 2020, such that by the last week of May, 2020, there were 2522 admissions, representing a 16% (95% CI 13–20) reduction from baseline. During the period of declining admissions, there were reductions in the numbers of admissions for all types of acute coronary syndrome, including both STEMI and NSTEMI, but relative and absolute reductions were larger for NSTEMI, with 1267 admissions per week in 2019 and 733 per week by the end of March, 2020, a percent reduction of 42% (95% CI 38–46). In parallel, reductions were recorded in the number of PCI procedures for patients with both STEMI (438 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 346 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 21%, 95% CI 12–29) and NSTEMI (383 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 240 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 37%, 29–45). The median length of stay among patients with acute coronary syndrome fell from 4 days (IQR 2–9) in 2019 to 3 days (1–5) by the end of March, 2020. Interpretation Compared with the weekly average in 2019, there was a substantial reduction in the weekly numbers of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were admitted to hospital in England by the end of March, 2020, which had been partly reversed by the end of May, 2020. The reduced number of admissions during this period is likely to have resulted in increases in out-of-hospital deaths and long-term complications of myocardial infarction and missed opportunities to offer secondary prevention treatment for patients with coronary heart disease. The full extent of the effect of COVID-19 on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome will continue to be assessed by updating these analyses. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

BackgroundAortic stenosis requires timely treatment with either surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to investigate the indirect impact of COVID-19 on national SAVR and TAVR activity and outcomes.MethodsThe UK TAVR Registry and the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit were used to identify all TAVR and SAVR procedures in England, between January 2017 and June 2020. The number of isolated AVR, AVR+coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, AVR+other surgery and TAVR procedures per month was calculated. Separate negative binomial regression models were fit to monthly procedural counts, with functions of time as covariates, to estimate the expected change in activity during COVID-19.ResultsWe included 13376 TAVR cases, 12328 isolated AVR cases, 7829 AVR+CABG cases, and 6014 AVR+Other cases. Prior to March 2020 (UK lockdown), monthly TAVR activity was rising, with a slight decrease in SAVR activity during 2019. We observed a rapid and significant drop in TAVR and SAVR activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for elective cases. Cumulatively, over the period March to June 2020, we estimated an expected 2294 (95% CI 1872, 2716) cases of severe aortic stenosis who have not received treatment.ConclusionThis study has demonstrated a significant decrease in TAVR and SAVR activity in England following the COVID-19 outbreak. This situation should be monitored closely, to ensure that monthly activity rapidly returns to expected levels. There is potential for significant backlog in the near-to-medium term, and potential for increased mortality in this population.

Aims COVID-19 might have affected the care and outcomes of hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic changed patient response, hospital treatment, and mortality from AMI. Methods and results Admission was classified as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or STEMI at 99 hospitals in England through live feeding from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project between 1 January 2019 and 22 May 2020. Time series plots were estimated using a 7-day simple moving average, adjusted for seasonality. From 23 March 2020 (UK lockdown), median daily hospitalizations decreased more for NSTEMI [69 to 35; incidence risk ratios (IRR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47–0.54] than STEMI (35 to 25; IRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69–0.80) to a nadir on 19 April 2020. During lockdown, patients were younger (mean age 68.7 vs. 66.9 years), less frequently diabetic (24.6% vs. 28.1%), or had cerebrovascular disease (7.0% vs. 8.6%). ST-elevation myocardial infarction more frequently received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (81.8% vs. 78.8%), thrombolysis was negligible (0.5% vs. 0.3%), median admission-to-coronary angiography duration for NSTEMI decreased (26.2 vs. 64.0 h), median duration of hospitalization decreased (4 to 2 days), secondary prevention pharmacotherapy prescription remained unchanged (each > 94.7%). Mortality at 30 days increased for NSTEMI [from 5.4% to 7.5%; odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.08–1.80], but decreased for STEMI (from 10.2% to 7.7%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54–0.97). Conclusion During COVID-19, there was a substantial decline in admissions with AMI. Those who presented to hospital were younger, less comorbid and, for NSTEMI, had higher 30-day mortality.

ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a decline in admissions with cardiovascular (CV) emergencies. The fatal consequences of this are unknown.ObjectivesTo describe the place and causes of acute CV death during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRetrospective nationwide cohort.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsAll adult (age ≥18 years) acute CV deaths (n=580,972) between 1st January 2014 and 2nd June 2020.ExposureThe COVID-19 pandemic (defined as from the onset of the first COVID-19 death in England on 2nd March 2020).Main outcomesPlace (hospital, care home, home) and acute CV events directly contributing to death as stated on the first part of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death.ResultsAfter 2nd March 2020, there were 22,820 acute CV deaths of which 5.7% related to COVID-19, and an excess acute CV mortality of 1752 (+8%) compared with the expected daily deaths in the same period. Deaths in the community accounted for nearly half of all deaths during this period. Care homes had the greatest increase in excess acute CV deaths (1065, +40%), followed by deaths at home (1728, +34%) and in hospital (57, +0%). The most frequent cause of acute CV death during this period was stroke (8,290, 36.3%), followed by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (5,532, 24.2%), heart failure (5,280, 23.1%), pulmonary embolism (2,067, 9.1%) and cardiac arrest (1,037, 4.5%). Deep vein thrombosis had the greatest increase in cause of excess acute CV death (18, +25%), followed pulmonary embolism (340, +19%) and stroke (782, +10%). The greatest cause of excess CV death in care homes was stroke (700, +48%), compared with cardiac arrest (80, +56%) at home, and pulmonary embolism (126, +14%) and cardiogenic shock (41, +14%) in hospital.Conclusions and relevanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an inflation in acute CV deaths above that expected for the time of year, nearly half of which occurred in the community. The most common cause of acute CV death was stroke followed by acute coronary syndrome and heart failure. This is key information to optimise messaging to the public and enable health resource planning.

There is limited national data regarding emergency cardiac surgery for complications sustained after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to examine emergency cardiac surgery after PCI in England and Wales and postsurgical patient outcomes. We analyzed patients in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database who underwent PCI between 2007 and 2014 and compared characteristics and outcomes for patients with and without emergency cardiac surgery. A total of 549,303 patients were included in the analysis and 362 (0.07%) underwent emergency cardiac surgery. There was a modest decline in the annual rate of emergency cardiac surgery from 0.09% to 0.06% between 2007 and 2014. Variables associated with emergency cardiac surgery included receipt of circulatory support (Odds ratio (OR) 39.20 95% confidence interval (CI) 27.75 to 55.36), aortic dissection (OR 28.39 95%CI 14.59 to 55.26), coronary dissection (OR 18.50 95%CI 13.60 to 25.18), coronary perforation (OR 7.86 95%CI 4.27 to 14.46), cardiac tamponade (OR 6.77 95%CI 3.13 to 14.66), and on-site surgical cover (OR 2.15 95%CI 1.56 to 2.97). After adjustments, patients with emergency cardiac surgery were at increased odds of 30-day mortality (OR 4.41 95%CI 2.94 to 6.62) and in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR 1.63 95%CI 1.07 to 2.48). On site surgical cover was independently associated with increased odds of mortality (OR 1.26 95%CI 1.20 to 1.33) following emergency cardiac surgery. In conclusion, emergency cardiac surgery after PCI is a rarely required procedure and in England and Wales there appears to be a decline in recent years. Patients who underwent emergency cardiac surgery have higher risk of adverse outcomes and longer length of hospital stay.

Background: Financial pressures for reducing hospitalization costs have driven to a move toward same day discharge (SDD) following uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention. The UK healthcare system has transitioned to predominantly SDD for elective percutaneous coronary intervention. This study aimed to examine patient’s clinical, procedural, and institutional characteristics that are associated with the increased adoption of SDD adoption over time in the United Kingdom and determine whether these vary by region. Methods: The data were derived from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society including all the elective percutaneous coronary intervention from 2007 to 2014 in the United Kingdom. We structured 8 meaningful groups of variables, and their relative importance was obtained by decomposing the R 2 in each study year. Results: The relative importance of Strategic Health Authorities was substantially higher than all other factors every year, with some reduction over time, from 49.2% (95% CI, 45.4%–52.4%) in 2007 to 43.4% (95% CI, 39.9%–46.6%) in 2014. Center volume followed with 8.95% (95% CI, 7.0%–10.9%) to 19.8% (95% CI, 16.7%–22.4%). Between patients’ clinical and procedural characteristics, pharmacology and access site had the highest relative importance values, from 14.3% (95% CI, 12.1%–16.4%) to 7.1% (95% CI, 5.5%–8.8%) and from 3.6% (95% CI, 2.3%–5.1%) to 11.8% (95% CI, 9.4%–14.3%), respectively. Relative importance of different groups varied differently across Strategic Health Authorities. Conclusions: Growth of SDD was mainly associated with regional characteristics, while subcontributors varied substantially between different regions. Standardized guidelines would provide more homogenous adoption of SDD nationally. This analysis might be of wider interest in healthcare systems slower in SDD adoption.

Aims This study aims to examine the temporal trends and outcomes in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a previous or current diagnosis of cancer, according to cancer type and the presence of metastases. Methods and results Individuals undergoing PCI between 2004 and 2014 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample were included in the study. Multivariable analyses were used to determine the association between cancer diagnosis and in-hospital mortality and complications. 6 571 034 PCI procedures were included and current and previous cancer rates were 1.8% and 5.8%, respectively. Both rates increased over time and the four most common cancers were prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer. Patients with a current lung cancer had greater in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.37–3.34) and any in-hospital complication (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10–1.36), while current colon cancer was associated with any complication (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.90–2.48) and bleeding (OR 3.65, 95% CI 3.07–4.35) but not mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.99–1.95). A current diagnosis of breast was not significantly associated with either in-hospital mortality or any of the complications studied and prostate cancer was only associated with increased risk of bleeding (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20–1.65). A historical diagnosis of lung cancer was independently associated with an increased OR of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.32–2.05). Conclusions Cancer among patients receiving PCI is common and the prognostic impact of cancer is specific both for the type of cancer, presence of metastases and whether the diagnosis is historical or current. Treatment of patients with a cancer diagnosis should be individualized and involve a close collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists.

Objectives Evaluate whether PCI in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) will reduce all-cause death and hospitalization for HF compared to a strategy of OMT alone. Background Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is the most common cause of heart failure (HF) and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Surgical revascularization has been shown to improve long-term outcomes in some patients, but surgery itself carries a major early hazard. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may allow a better balance between risk and benefit. Methods REVIVED-BCIS2 is a prospective, multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial, funded by the National Institute for Health Research in the United Kingdom. Follow-up will be for at least 2 years from randomization. Secondary outcomes include left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life scores, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy and acute myocardial infarction. Patients with LVEF ≤35%, extensive coronary disease and demonstrable myocardial viability are eligible for inclusion and those with a myocardial infarction within 4 weeks, decompensated HF or sustained ventricular arrhythmias within 72 h are excluded. A trial of 700 patients has more than 85% power to detect a 30% relative reduction in hazard. Results A total of 400 patients have been enrolled to date. Conclusions International guidelines do not provide firm recommendations on the role of PCI in managing severe ICM, because of a lack of robust evidence. REVIVED-BCIS2 will provide the first randomized data on the efficacy and safety of PCI in ICM and has the potential to inform guidelines pertaining to both revascularization and HF. (Study of Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Improve Survival in Heart Failure [REVIVED-BCIS2]; NCT01920048) (REVascularisation for Ischaemic VEntricular Dysfunction; ISRCTN45979711)

Objectives The authors sought to determine the relationships between left radial access (LRA) or right radial access (RRA) and clinical outcomes using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database. Background LRA has been shown to offer procedural advantages over RRA in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) although few data exist from a national perspective around its use and association with clinical outcomes. Methods The authors investigated the relationship between use of LRA or RRA and clinical outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in-hospital stroke, and major bleeding complications in patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014. Results Of 342,806 cases identified, 328,495 (96%) were RRA and 14,311 (4%) were LRA. Use of LRA increased from 3.2% to 4.6% from 2007 to 2014. In patients undergoing a repeat PCI procedure, the use of RRA dropped to 72% at the second procedure and was even lower in females (65%) and patients >75 years of age (70%). Use of LRA (compared with RRA) was not associated with significant differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.57; p = 0.20), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.74; p = 0.16), MACE (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.32; p = 0.56), or major bleeding (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.77; p = 0.24). In propensity match analysis, LRA was associated with a significant decrease in in-hospital stroke (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.005). Conclusions In this large PCI database, use of LRA is limited compared with RRA but conveys no increased risk of adverse outcomes, but may be associated with a reduction in PCI-related stroke complications.

Objectives Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database, access site choice and outcomes of patients undergoing PCI with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were studied. Background Given the influence of access site on outcomes, use of radial access in PCI-CABG warrants further investigation. Methods Data were analyzed from 58,870 PCI-CABG procedures performed between 2005 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access site choice and its association with outcomes. Results The number of PCI-CABG cases and the percentage of total PCI increased significantly during the study period. Femoral artery (FA) utilization fell from 90.8% in 2005 to 57.6% in 2014 (p Conclusions In contemporary practice, FA access remains predominant during PCI-CABG with case complexity associated with it use. FA use was associated with longer length of stay, and higher rates of vascular complications, major bleeding, and transfusion.

Objectives This study sought to examine the relationship between access site practice and clinical outcomes in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following thrombolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background Transradial access (TRA) is associated with better outcomes in patients requiring PCI for STEMI. A significant proportion of STEMI patients may receive thrombolysis before undergoing PCI in many countries across the world. There are limited data around access site practice and its associated outcomes in this cohort of patients. Methods The author used the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society dataset to investigate the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI following thrombolysis between 2007 and 2014. Patients were divided into TRA and transfemoral access groups depending on the access site used. Multiple logistic regression and propensity score matching were used to study the association of access site with in-hospital and long-term mortality, major bleeding, and access site–related complications. Results A total of 10,209 patients received thrombolysis and PCI during the study time. TRA was used in 48% (n = 4,959) of patients; 3.3% (n = 336) patients died in hospital, 1.6% (n = 165) of patients experienced major bleeding, 4.2% (n = 437) experienced major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and 4.6% (n = 468) experienced 30-day mortality. After multivariate adjustment, TRA was associated with significantly reduced odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.83; p = 0.002), major bleeding (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.66; p Conclusions TRA is associated with decreased odds of bleeding complications, mortality, and MACE in patients undergoing PCI following thrombolysis and should be preferred access site choice in this cohort of patients.

Objectives The study sought to determine the risk factors for post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) dialysis and to determine the impact of pre-TAVR or post-TAVR dialysis on mortality. Background TAVR is now established as an alternative treatment to surgical aortic valve replacement. Data examining the impact of dialysis on outcomes after TAVR are lacking. Methods The UK TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) Registry was established to report outcomes on all TAVR procedures performed within the United Kingdom (2007 to 2014). Data were collected prospectively on 6,464 patients with a median follow-up of 625 days. Results The proportion of patients on dialysis before TAVR has remained constant at 1.8%. After TAVR, the proportion of patients newly needing dialysis after TAVR has fallen from 6.1% (2007 to 2008) to 2.3% (2013 to 2014). The risk of new dialysis requirement after TAVR was independently associated with lower baseline renal function, year of procedure, impaired left ventricular function, diabetes, use of an Edwards valve, a nontransfemoral approach, need for open surgery, and moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation after the procedure. Requirement for new dialysis after TAVR was associated with higher mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio: 6.44; 95% confidence interval: 4.87 to 8.53) and at 4 years (hazard ratio: 3.54; 95% confidence interval: 2.99 to 4.19; p Conclusions The proportion of patients needing dialysis after TAVR has decreased over time. Post-TAVR dialysis is associated with increased mortality. Factors identified with dialysis requirement after TAVR require further investigation.

Background\ud Aortic stenosis (AS) poses a perioperative management dilemma to physicians looking after patients who require non-cardiac surgery. The objective of this review is to investigate mortality and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with and without AS who underwent non-cardiac surgery.\ud \ud Methods\ud We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that evaluated mortality and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with and without AS who underwent non-cardiac surgery. Pooled risk ratios for mortality and adverse outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, death) were calculated using the dichotomous analysis method and subgroup analysis was performed considering the effect of severity of AS and symptoms.\ud \ud Results\ud We identified 9 relevant studies with 29,327 participants. Among studies of severe AS, there was no significant difference in mortality (RR: 1.49, 95%CI:0.85–2.61; P = 0.16) associated with non-cardiac surgery, but there was a significant increase in the composite adverse outcome (RR: 2.30, 95%CI:1.33–3.97; P = 0.003). When the analysis involved any other degree of AS, eight studies were included and the pooled results showed a significant increase in composite adverse outcome (RR: 1.64, 95%CI:1.23–2.19; P < 0.001) and myocardial infarction (RR: 1.90, 95%CI:1.54–2.34; P < 0.001). When patients with asymptomatic AS were considered, the pooled results of four studies suggested an increased risk of composite adverse outcomes (RR: 1.59, 95%CI:1.19–2.12; P = 0.002) but not mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Patients with AS undergoing non-cardiac surgery have not been shown to be at increased risk of mortality, but have significantly higher rates of adverse cardiovascular events compared to patients without AS.

Objectives\ud The aim of this study was to assess, using a national percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database, access-site choice and outcomes after chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI.\ud \ud Background\ud Given the influence of access site on outcomes, the use of radial access in CTO PCI warrants further investigation.\ud \ud Methods\ud Data were analyzed from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society dataset of 26,807 elective CTO PCI procedures performed in England and Wales between 2006 and 2013. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of access-site choice and its association with outcomes.\ud \ud Results\ud There was a significant decrease in femoral artery (FA) access from 84.6% in 2006 to 57.9% in 2013. Procedural factors associated with FA access included dual access (odds ratio [OR]: 3.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.45 to 4.32), CrossBoss/Stingray (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.43 to 2.12), intravascular ultrasound (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.53), and microcatheter use (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.39). There was an association between FA access and the number of CTO devices used (p = 0.001 for trend). Access-site complications (1.5% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.001), periprocedural myocardial infarction (0.5% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.037), major bleeding (0.8% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001), transfusion (0.4% vs. 0%; p < 0.001), and 30-day death (0.6% vs. 0.1%; p = 0.002) were more frequent in patients undergoing CTO PCI using FA access. An access-site complication during CTO PCI was associated with significant increases in transfusion (8.0% vs. 0.1%; p < 0.001), procedural coronary complication (17.3% vs. 5.8%; p < 0.0001), major bleeding (8.4% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.001), and mortality at all time points.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud FA access remains predominant during CTO PCI, with case complexity and device size associated with its use. Access-site complications were more frequent with FA use and strongly correlated with adverse outcomes.

Improved and durable control of hypertension is a global priority for healthcare providers and policymakers. There are several lifestyle measures that are proven to result in improved blood pressure (BP) control. Moreover, there is incontrovertible evidence from large scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that antihypertensive drugs lower BP safely and effectively in the long-term resulting in substantial reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Importantly, however, evidence is accumulating to suggest that patients neither sustain long-term healthy behaviours nor adhere to lifelong drug treatment regimens and thus alternative measures to control hypertension warrant further investigation. Endovascular renal denervation (RDN) appears to hold some promise as a non-pharmacological approach to lowering BP and achieves renal sympathectomy using either radiofrequency energy or ultrasound-based approaches. This treatment modality has been evaluated in clinical trials in humans since 2009 but initial studies were compromised by being non-randomised, without sham control and small in size. Subsequently, clinical trial design and rigour of execution has been greatly improved resulting in recent sham-controlled RCTs that demonstrate short-term reduction in ambulatory BP without any significant safety concerns in both medication-naïve and medication-treated hypertensive patients. Despite this, the joint UK societies still feel that further evaluation of this therapy is warranted and that RDN should not be offered to patients outside of the context of clinical trials. This document reviews the updated evidence since our last consensus statement from 2014 and provides a research agenda for future clinical studies.

Background:High survival rates are commonly reported following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, with most contemporary studies reporting overall survival.Aims:The aim of this study was to describe survival following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction corrected for non-cardiovascular deaths by reporting relative survival and investigate clinically significant factors associated with poor long-term outcomes.Methods and Results:Using the prospective UK Percutaneous Coronary Intervention registry, primary percutaneous coronary intervention cases ( n=88,188; 2005–2013) were matched to mortality data for the UK populace. Crude five-year relative survival was 87.1% for the patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and 94.7% for patients 75 years: 4.69, 4.27–5.16). After four years, there was no excess mortality for ages 56–65 years (excess mortality rate ratio 1.27, 0.95–1.70), but persisting excess mortality for older groups (66–75 years: excess mortality rate ratio 1.72, 1.30–2.27; >75 years: 1.66, 1.15–2.41). Excess mortality was associated with cardiogenic shock (excess mortality rate ratio 6.10, 5.72–6.50), renal failure (2.52, 2.27–2.81), left main stem stenosis (1.67, 1.54–1.81), diabetes (1.58, 1.47–1.69), previous myocardial infarction (1.52, 1.40–1.65) and female sex (1.33, 1.26–1.41); whereas stent deployment (0.46, 0.42–0.50) especially drug eluting stents (0.27, 0.45–0.55), radial access (0.70, 0.63–0.71) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (0.67, 0.60–0.75) were protective.Conclusions:Following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, long-term cardiovascular survival is excellent. Failure to account for non-cardiovascular death may result in an underestimation of the efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

There are limited data on aspirin (ASA) desensitization for patients with coronary disease. We present our experience with a rapid nurse-led oral desensitization regimen in patients with aspirin sensitivity undergoing coronary angiography.This single-center retrospective observational study includes patients with a history of ASA sensitivity undergoing coronary angiography with intent to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Between January 2012 and January 2017, 24 patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable coronary disease (7 cases) or acute coronary syndromes (non-ST-segment myocardial infarction [NSTEMI; 8 cases], STEMI [9 cases]) underwent aspirin desensitization having reported previous reactions to aspirin. At initial presentation, previous sensitivity reactions were reported as: mucocutaneous reactions in 17 patients (urticaria in 3 [13%], nonurticarial rash in 6 [25%], angio-oedema in 8 [33%]), respiratory sensitivity in 4 (17%), and systemic anaphylactoid reactions in 3 (13%). Seventeen (71%) patients underwent PCI. Desensitization was acutely successful in 22 (92%) patients and unsuccessful in 2 (8%) patients who both had a single short-lived episode of acute bronchospasm treated successfully with nebulized salbutamol. Fifteen successfully desensitized patients completed 12 months of aspirin; no patient had recurrent hypersensitivity reaction. Aspirin was stopped prior to 12 months in 7 patients (replaced by warfarin [1 case], no antiplatelet or single antiplatelet clinically indicated and clopidogrel chosen [4 cases], patient choice without evidence of recurrent hypersensitivity [1 case], and death due to cardiogenic shock following STEMI [1 case]).A rapid aspirin desensitization protocol is safe and effective across a broad spectrum of hypersensitivity reactions and clinical presentations.