Search

Background: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score was developed and validated in predominantly male patient populations. We aimed to assess its sex-specific performance in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and to develop an improved score (GRACE 3.0) that accounts for sex differences in disease characteristics., Methods: We evaluated the GRACE 2.0 score in 420 781 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS in contemporary nationwide cohorts from the UK and Switzerland. Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality were informed by the GRACE variables and developed in sex-disaggregated data from 386 591 patients from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (split into a training cohort of 309 083 [80·0%] patients and a validation cohort of 77 508 [20·0%] patients). External validation of the GRACE 3.0 score was done in 20 727 patients from Switzerland., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Aug 27, 2020, 400 054 patients with NSTE-ACS in the UK and 20 727 patients with NSTE-ACS in Switzerland were included in the study. Discrimination of in-hospital death by the GRACE 2.0 score was good in male patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86, 95% CI 0·86-0·86) and notably lower in female patients (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·82; p<0·0001). The GRACE 2.0 score underestimated in-hospital mortality risk in female patients, favouring their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not indicate early invasive treatment. Accounting for sex differences, GRACE 3.0 showed superior discrimination and good calibration with an AUC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·89-0·92) in male patients and 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·89) in female patients in an external cohort validation. GRACE 3·0 led to a clinically relevant reclassification of female patients to the high-risk group., Interpretation: The GRACE 2.0 score has limited discriminatory performance and underestimates in-hospital mortality in female patients with NSTE-ACS. The GRACE 3.0 score performs better in men and women and reduces sex inequalities in risk stratification., Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Lindenhof Foundation, Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and Theodor-Ida-Herzog-Egli Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SK received travel support from the European Atherosclerosis Society and equipment and materials from Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. MR declares institutional research grants from Terumo, Biotronik, Medtronic, Cordis/Cardinal Health, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. LR received funding from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Heartflow, consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Canon, NovoNordisk, Medtronic, Sanofi, Occlutech, and Vifor, payment or honoraria from Abbott and Occlutech, and travel support from AstraZeneca. MdB is Chair of the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee of the UK GRIS Trial and part of the Steering Committee of the DAPA MI Trial. CW is the clinical lead of the MINAP registry. JD received consulting fees from GENinCode UK Ltd, honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Aegerion, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer, and travel support from the Einstein Professorship Foundation (Berlin, Germany), outside the submitted work. JD holds unpaid leadership positions at Our Future Health and Public Health England. TFL declares institutional educational and research grants from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Vifor, and consulting fees from Daichi Sankyo, Philipps, Pfizer, and Ineeo Inc, outside the submitted work. TFL holds leadership positions at the European Society of Cardiology, Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Foundation for Cardiovascular Research—Zurich Heart House. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Internal Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Publication of The Journal of Internal Medicine.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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 inpatient revascularisation (PCI or CABG) and 50% less likely to receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on discharge, with a significant increase in odds of MACE (~8 to 9-fold), all-cause and cardiac mortality (25 to 35-fold), and bleeding (78-91%). 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 (revascularisation and DAPT), compared to males, and were more likely to experience MACE, all-cause and cardiac mortality., Conclusion: 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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes is a performance metric and a requirement in many healthcare systems. There are inconsistent data on the causes of death after PCI, and the proportion of these deaths that are attributable to cardiac causes., Methods: All patients undergoing PCI in England between January 1, 2017 and May 10, 2020 (n = 273,141) were retrospectively analyzed according to their outcome from the date of PCI: no death, in-hospital death, postdischarge death, and total 30-day death. The present study examined short-term primary causes of death after PCI in a national cohort before and during COVID-19., Results: The overall rates of in-hospital and 30-day death were 1.9% and 2.8%, respectively. The rate of 30-day death declined between 2017 (2.9%) and February 2020 (2.5%), mainly due to lower in-hospital death (2.1% vs 1.5%), before rising again from March 1, 2020 (3.2%) due to higher rates of postdischarge mortality. Only 59.6% of 30-day deaths were due to cardiac causes, with the most common causes being acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, and heart failure, and this persisted throughout the study period. In the 30-day death group, 10.4% after March 1, 2020 were due to confirmed COVID-19., Conclusions: In this nationwide study, we show that 40% of 30-day deaths are due to non-cardiac causes. Non-cardiac deaths have increased even more from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, with 1 in 10 deaths from March 2020 being COVID-19 related. These findings raise a question of whether public reporting of PCI outcomes should be cause specific.

Objective: To describe the place and causes of acute cardiovascular death during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Retrospective cohort of adult (age ≥18 years) acute cardiovascular deaths (n=5 87 225) in England and Wales, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2020. The exposure was the COVID-19 pandemic (from onset of the first COVID-19 death in England, 2 March 2020). The main outcome was acute cardiovascular events directly contributing to death., Results: After 2 March 2020, there were 28 969 acute cardiovascular deaths of which 5.1% related to COVID-19, and an excess acute cardiovascular mortality of 2085 (+8%). Deaths in the community accounted for nearly half of all deaths during this period. Death at home had the greatest excess acute cardiovascular deaths (2279, +35%), followed by deaths at care homes and hospices (1095, +32%) and in hospital (50, +0%). The most frequent cause of acute cardiovascular death during this period was stroke (10 318, 35.6%), followed by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (7 098, 24.5%), heart failure (6 770, 23.4%), pulmonary embolism (2 689, 9.3%) and cardiac arrest (1 328, 4.6%). The greatest cause of excess cardiovascular death in care homes and hospices was stroke (715, +39%), compared with ACS (768, +41%) at home and cardiogenic shock (55, +15%) in hospital., Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an inflation in acute cardiovascular deaths, nearly half of which occurred in the community and most did not relate to COVID-19 infection suggesting there were delays to seeking help or likely the result of undiagnosed COVID-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: 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., Methods: 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)., Results: 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])., Conclusion: A rapid aspirin desensitization protocol is safe and effective across a broad spectrum of hypersensitivity reactions and clinical presentations.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate outcomes associated with different P2Y12 agents in Saphenous Vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: SVG PCI is associated with greater risks of ischemic complications, compared with native coronary PCI. Outcomes associated with the use of potent P2Y12 blocking drugs, Prasugrel and Ticagrelor, in SVG PCI are unknown., Methods: Patients included in the study underwent SVG PCI in the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2014 for acute coronary syndrome and were grouped by P2Y12 antiplatelet use. In-hospital major adverse cardiac events, major bleeding and 30-day and 1-year mortality were examined. Multiple imputations with chained equations to impute missing data were used. Adjustment for baseline imbalances was performed using (1) multiple logistic regression (MLR) and (separately) (2) propensity score matching (PSM)., Results: Data weres analyzed from 8,119 patients and most cases were treated with Clopidogrel (n = 7,401), followed by Ticagrelor (n = 497) and Prasugrel (n = 221). In both MLR and PSM models, there was no significant evidence to suggest that either Prasugrel or Ticagrelor was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality compared with Clopidogrel. The odds ratios reported from the multivariable analysis were 1.22 (95% CI: 0.60-2.51) for Prasugrel vs. Clopidogrel and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.20-1.16) for Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel. No significant differences were seen for in-hospital ischemic or bleeding events., Conclusions: Our real world national study provides no clear evidence to indicate that use of potent P2Y12 blockers in SVG PCI is associated with improved clinical outcomes., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: There is wide variation in survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and overall survival remains poor. There is an expert consensus that early reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation reduces mortality. The management of patients without ST-elevation, however, is controversial., Methods and Results: The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project database is a national registry of all hospital admissions in England and Wales treated as an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We examined temporal trends, over a 5-year period, of OHCAs identified by Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project, admitted to hospital and treated as ACS, the interventional management of these patients and clinical outcomes. Four hundred ten thousand four hundred sixty-two patients were admitted to hospital in England and Wales with ACS. Of these, 9421 presented with OHCA (2.30%). There was an increase in OHCA cases as a proportion of ACS between 2009 and 2013 (1.79% in 2009 versus 2.74% in 2013; P trend <0.001). The rate of coronary angiography+percutaneous coronary intervention increased in ACS patients presenting with OHCA (54.9% in 2009 [876/1595] versus 66.3% in 2013 [884/1334]; P trend <0.001). Cox proportional hazards model with time-varying exposure to coronary angiography demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality in both the ST-elevation (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.32; P <0.05) and non-ST-elevation cohort (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.46; P <0.001). Predictors of favorable outcome were synonymous with the selection criteria for patients undergoing coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention., Conclusions: This observational study showed that selection for coronary angiography±percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with reduced mortality in OHCA patients diagnosed with ACS. These data support the need for a randomized controlled trial., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Aims: The aim of this registry was to monitor practice patterns and outcomes in patients treated with Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) during the early phase of usage in the UK., Methods and Results: A total of 1,005 patients with de novo coronary lesions were treated using careful implantation techniques at 24 centres. Follow-up at one year was obtained in 99%. An independent clinical events committee and angiographic core lab adjudicated all events. Patient age was 52 years and 46% presented with acute coronary syndromes. Lesion complexity was B2/C in 47.4%, with an average of 1.4±0.6 BVS implanted and a BVS length of 28±14.3 mm. A single BVS was implanted in 71.3%. High pressure post-dilatation was performed in 94.9%, with 50% using intravascular imaging. Device success was achieved in 98.7% and procedure success in 97.3% of patients. At one year, the device-oriented endpoint target lesion failure was 3.2%, and the patient-oriented endpoint major adverse cardiac events was 3.4%. Definite ST occurred in 1.4%. By multivariable analysis, scaffold size of 2.5 mm predicted ST at one year (OR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.28-8.37; p=0.014)., Conclusions: With careful patient selection and technique, TLF rates following BVS implantation in real-world practice are comparable with contemporary drug-eluting stents. ST rates remain high, with small vessel size identified as a contributory factor.

Objectives: This study sought to determine the relationships among access site practice, clinical presentation, and procedural outcomes in a large patient population., Background: Transradial access (TRA) has been associated with improved patient outcomes in selected populations in randomized trials. It is unclear whether these outcomes are achievable in clinical practice., Methods: Using the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society) database, we investigated outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention procedures undertaken between 2007 and 2012 according to access site practice. Patients were categorized as stable, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STEACS). The impact of access site on 30-day mortality, major adverse cardiac events, bleeding, and arterial access site complications was studied., Results: Data from 210,260 TRA and 229,687 transfemoral access procedures were analyzed. Following multivariate analysis, TRA was independently associated with a reduction in bleeding in all presenting syndromes (stable odds ratio [OR]: 0.24, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.35, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.47, p < 0.001) as well as access site complications (stable OR: 0.21, p < 0.001; NSTEACS OR: 0.19; STEACS OR: 0.16, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with reduced major adverse cardiac events only in patients with unstable syndromes (stable OR: 1.08, p = 0.25; NSTEACS OR: 0.72, p < 0.001; STEACS OR: 0.70, p < 0.001). TRA was associated with improved outcomes compared with a transfemoral access (TFA) with a vascular closure device in a propensity matched cohort., Conclusions: In this large study, TRA is associated with reduced percutaneous coronary intervention-related complications in all patient groups and may reduce major adverse cardiac events and mortality in ACS patients. TRA is superior to transfemoral access with closure devices. Use of TRA may lead to important patient benefits in routine practice. TRA should be considered the preferred access site for percutaneous coronary intervention., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The goal of this study was to report outcomes from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to an unprotected left main stem (UPLMS) stenosis according to presenting syndrome, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), and chronic stable angina (CSA)., Background: There are no published whole-country data concerning patient outcomes following PCI to UPLMS., Methods: This study is a prospective national cohort study using data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2010., Results: Of 5,065 patients having PCI to an UPLMS, 784 (15.5%) presented with STEMI, 2,381 (47.0%) with NSTEACS, and 1,900 (37.5%) with CSA. Crude 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were STEMI: 28.3% and 37.6%, NSTEACS: 8.9% and 19.5%, and CSA: 1.4% and 7.0%, respectively. Unadjusted in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rates were STEMI: 26.6%, NSTEACS: 6.6%, and CSA: 3.3%. Risk of 30-day mortality was much greater for STEMI and NSTEACS patients than CSA (STEMI adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 29.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.37 to 44.80, NSTEACS aOR: 6.45, 95% CI: 4.27 to 9.76). More than 40% of patients presenting with STEMI had cardiogenic shock, in whom mortality was higher than in STEMI cases without shock (30 days: 52.0% vs. 11.7%, 1 year: 61.1% vs. 20.9%). Radial access, compared with the femoral approach, was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality (STEMI aOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.62; NSTEACS aOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97)., Conclusions: More than one-half of the patients who received UPLMS PCI were acute where outcomes were much worse than elective cases. Cardiogenic shock is common in STEMI patients, of whom more than one-half die at 30 days. The radial approach was associated with reduced early mortality in acute cases., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Many countries have embarked on national strategies to translate evidence from trials of reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) into clinical practice. Primary angioplasty has become the dominant mode of reperfusion, but the best outcomes depend on appropriate service re-configurations to ensure rapid, effective and comprehensive treatment. Although there are many differences in the treatment of STEMI and non-STEMI acute coronary syndromes (ACS), there are many parallels. Many of the changes in the system of care for STEMI patients could now be applied to the non-STEMI ACS population, providing faster and more efficient care and promising to deliver better outcomes. This article highlights additional changes to healthcare services that should be considered.

Although clinical trials have demonstrated that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) provides better outcomes than thrombolysis for STEMI, it cannot be assumed that similar results can be obtained in day-to-day practice. To determine whether standards are being met, continuous audit of PPCI programmes is necessary, with appropriate feedback to participating centres and operators. Both the MINAP and BCIS national audit projects allow central electronic collection of data on consecutive patients presenting to every hospital involved in the acute management of these patients. Regular programmed feedback is provided to centres performing primary PCI that attempts to take account of statistical variation and differences in case mix between units by making use of funnel plots, statistical process control graphs and risk adjustment models. This reporting of "process" and "outcome" data, both confidentially and within the public domain, has been used to drive up clinical performance and has been associated with steady improvements and reduced inequalities of care.

Introduction: The role of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains a topic of debate. We sought to study the safety and feasibility of combined BAV and percutaneous coronary intervention (BAV-PCI). Methods: Between November 2009 and July 2020, all patients undergoing BAV were identified and divided into three groups: combined BAV-PCI (group A), BAV with significant unrevascularised CAD (group B), and BAV without significant CAD (group C). Procedural outcomes and 30-day and one-year mortality were compared. Results: A total of 264 patients were studied (n = 84, 93, and 87 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively). The STS score was 10.2 ± 8, 13.3 ± 19, and 8.1 ± 7, p = 0.026, in groups A, B, and C, respectively. VARC-3 adjudicated complications were similar among groups (11%, 13%, and 5%, respectively, p = 0.168, respectively). Thirty-day and one-year mortality were 9.8% (n = 26) and 32% (n = 86) of the entire cohort. The differences among groups did not reach statistical significance. Using univariate Cox regression analysis, group B patients were at higher risk of dying compared to group A patients (HR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.11–2.25, p = 0.010). With multivariate Cox regression analysis, the predictors of mortality were STS score, cardiogenic shock, mode of presentation, and lack of subsequent definitive valve intervention. Conclusion: In high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis, combined BAV-PCI is safe and feasible with comparable outcomes to BAV with and without significant CAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There 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.Methods: Using 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.Results: Of 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%, p<0.001) and had a longer median delay to reperfusion (4.1 hours vs 3.7 hours, p<0.001) compared with whites. BAME had higher in-hospital (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.28) and 7-day mortality (OR 1.81 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19) during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 period.Conclusion: In 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--The impact of vascular closure devices (VCDs) via the femoral arterial access site on short-term mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is currently unknown. Methods and Results--The association between femoral arterial vascular access site management (manual pressure [including external clamp] versus VCD) and 30-day mortality was examined in a national real-world registry of 271 845 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for elective, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indications in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2011. Crude and propensity score-corrected analyses were performed using Cox regression, with additional analyses undertaken in clinically relevant subgroups; 40.1% (n=109 001) of subjects were treated with manual pressure and 59.9% (n=162 844) with VCD. Subjects treated with VCD had fewer comorbidities and were less likely to present with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (P<0.001). Crude 30-day mortality was lower in the group treated with VCD compared with manual pressure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.61; 1.4% versus 2.4%, log rank P<0.0001), findings that were substantially reduced but persisted after propensity score correction (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97; 1.8% versus 2.0% versus P<0.001). A more pronounced association of VCD with a reduction in 30- day mortality was evident in females (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94; Pinteraction=0.037), presentation with acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94; Pinteraction=0.0027), or recent lysis (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.01; Pinteraction=0.0001). Conclusions--When compared with manual pressure, VCD was associated with a minor short-term (30-day) prognostic benefit after propensity score correction in the global population and clinically relevant subgroups. The potential for residual confounding factors impacting on short-term mortality cannot be excluded, despite the study having measured and balanced all recorded confounder factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Strategies to reduce DTB (door-to-balloon) time have been previously described. However, there is no well-established data-monitoring system that can be used for prompt feedback. The aims of this study were to use statistical process control (SPC) methodology to measure current processes, to provide real-time feedback on the impact of a change in service delivery and to identify individual outliers for specific investigation. Methods A prospective study was conducted in a tertiary centre in North England. Data were collected for 841 consecutive STEMI patients from the local district undergoing PPCI. The impact on median DTB time after changes in protocols were prospectively determined. Results Median DTB times fell significantly as a result of changes in protocol. The upper control limit (UCL) decreased from 209 to 86 min and narrower control limits indicated improved performance. The main outliers included patients presenting to the Accident and Emergency department and patients who developed STEMI while being treated in non-cardiology wards for other reasons (18.3% of the study population). Conclusions SPC provides a statistically robust mechanism for assessing the effect of process redesign interventions, and in this context provides a clear visual representation of DTB times for individual patients. Identification of significant outliers allows investigation of any variation with a special cause. It allows a unit to identify when a system of service delivery, albeit stable, is inadequate and needs redesign and can monitor the impact of changes in protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a reduced risk of mortality compared with transfemoral access, access site-related bleeding complications, and shorter length of stay. The budget impact from a healthcare system that has largely transitioned to TRA for PCI has not been previously published.Methods and Results: Data from 323 656 patients undergoing PCI between 2010 and 2014 were obtained from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. Costs for TRA and transfemoral access PCI were estimated based on procedure cost, length of stay, and differences in the rates of complications (major bleeding and vascular complications). In the base case, a propensity-matched data set between transfemoral access and TRA was used to directly compare the cost per PCI, whereas in the real-world analysis, the full data set was used. Across all indications and all years, TRA offered an average cost saving of £250.59 per procedure (22% reduction) versus transfemoral access with the majority of cost saving derived from reduced length of stay (£190.43) rather than direct costs of complications (£3.71). In the real-world analysis, adoption of TRA was estimated to have provided cost savings of £13.31 million across England between 2010 and 2014; however, if operators in all regions had adopted TRA at the rate of the region with the highest utilization, cost savings of £33.40 million could have been achieved.Conclusions: The transition to TRA in England has been associated with significant cost savings across the national healthcare system, in addition to the well-established clinical benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]