Search

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic was associated with changes in the pattern of acute cardiovascular admissions across European centers.METHODS: We set-up a multicenter, multinational, pan-European observational registry in 15 centers from 12 countries. All consecutive acute admissions to emergency departments and cardiology departments throughout a 1-month period during the COVID-19 outbreak were compared with an equivalent 1-month period in 2019. The acute admissions to cardiology departments were classified into 5 major categories: acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, and other.RESULTS: Data from 54,331 patients were collected and analyzed. Nine centers provided data on acute admissions to emergency departments comprising 50,384 patients: 20,226 in 2020 compared with 30,158 in 2019 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] with 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.66 [0.58-0.76]). The risk of death at the emergency departments was higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (odds ratio [OR] with 95% CI: 4.1 [3.0-5.8], P < 0.0001). All 15 centers provided data on acute cardiology departments admissions: 3007 patients in 2020 and 4452 in 2019; IRR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.64-0.71). In 2020, there were fewer admissions with IRR (95% CI): acute coronary syndrome: 0.68 (0.63-0.73); acute heart failure: 0.65 (0.58-0.74); arrhythmia: 0.66 (0.60-0.72); and other: 0.68(0.62-0.76). We found a relatively higher percentage of pulmonary embolism admissions in 2020: odds ratio (95% CI): 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P = 0.02. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, there were fewer admissions with unstable angina: 0.79 (0.66-0.94); non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.56 (0.50-0.64); and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.78 (0.68-0.89).CONCLUSION: In the European centers during the COVID-19 outbreak, there were fewer acute cardiovascular admissions. Also, fewer patients were admitted to the emergency departments with 4 times higher death risk at the emergency departments. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Aims: Infection is a major complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy that usually requires device extraction and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The TYRX Antibacterial Envelope is a polypropylene mesh that stabilizes the CIED and elutes minocycline and rifampin to reduce the risk of post-operative infection. Methods: A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TYRX vs standard of care (SOC) following implantation of four CIED device types. The model was parameterized for a UK National Health Service perspective. Probabilities were derived from the literature. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration, hospitalization, adverse events, device extraction, and replacement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Over a 12-month time horizon, TYRX was less costly and more effective than SOC when utilized in patients with an ICD or CRT-D. TYRX was associated with ICERs of £46,548 and £21,768 per QALY gained in patients with an IPG or CRT-P, respectively. TYRX was cost-effective at a £30,000 threshold at baseline probabilities of infection exceeding 1.65% (CRT-D), 1.95% (CRT-P), 1.87% (IPG), and 1.38% (ICD). Limitations and conclusions: Device-specific infection rates for high-risk patients were not available in the literature and not used in this analysis, potentially under-estimating the impact of TYRX in certain devices. Nevertheless, TYRX is associated with a reduction in post-operative infection risk relative to SOC, resulting in reduced healthcare resource utilization at an initial cost. The ICERs are below the accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds used by UK decision-makers. TYRX, therefore, represents a cost-effective prevention option for CIED patients at high-risk of post-operative infection.

Aim: To estimate health resource utilization (HRU) associated with the management of pacemaker complications in various healthcare systems. Methods: Electrophysiologists (EPs) from four geographical regions (Western Europe, Australia, Japan, and North America) were invited to participate. Survey questions focused on HRU in the management of three chronic pacemaker complications (i.e. pacemaker infections requiring extraction, lead fractures/insulation breaches requiring replacement, and upper extremity deep venous thrombosis [DVT]). Panelists completed a maximum of two web-based surveys (iterative rounds). Mean, median values, and interquartile ranges were calculated and used to establish consensus. Results: Overall, 32 and 29 panelists participated in the first and second rounds of the Delphi panel, respectively. Consensus was reached on treatment and HRU associated with a typical pacemaker implantation and complications. HRU was similar across regions, except for Japan, where panelists reported the longest duration of hospital stay in all scenarios. Infections were the most resource-intensive complications and were characterized by intravenous antibiotics days of 9.6?13.5 days and 21.3?29.2 days for pocket and lead infections respectively; laboratory and diagnostic tests, and system extraction and replacement procedures. DVT, on the other hand, was the least resource intensive complication. Limitations: The results of the panel represent the views of the respondents who participated and may not be generalizable outside of this panel. The surveys were limited in scope and, therefore, did not include questions on management of acute complications (e.g. hematoma, pneumothorax). Conclusions: The Delphi technique provided a reliable and efficient approach to estimating resource utilization associated with chronic pacemaker complications. Estimates from the Delphi panel can be used to generate costs of pacemaker complications in various regions.

Minor surgical procedures are increasingly being performed as outpatient procedures in settings outside hospital operating rooms (ORs). In electrophysiology, the recent miniaturization of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) has enabled the routine insertion of the device as a minimally invasive procedure without the need of a catheter OR. However, a shift to office-based environments for minor surgical procedures is associated with some concerns, particularly with respect to patient- and procedure-related safety in the new setting. In the present document, the authors provide practical advice on facilities, practices, and adaptations necessary when performing ICM insertions in office settings, based on available recommendations as well as their own experience with the use of the novel Reveal LINQ ICM. The main differences from in-hospital implant settings are simplified requirements of room, equipment, and insertion procedures, while ensuring and maintaining an adequate, sterile environment. Patient selection is important: certain groups of patients are recommended to be treated in the catheter OR (e.g. those at increased risk for bleeding or very frail elderly individuals). Insertion in alternative positions, as is sometimes performed for cosmetic reasons, should be referred to dedicated hospitals. Quality assurance and internal quality control are critical in the new procedural landscape, and it is important not to trivialize minor surgical procedures. Operators' sharing of experiences and lessons learned, e.g. in the form of registries, should be encouraged.

We appreciate the comments made on our article and would like to address the questions raised about our study methodology. First, regarding the selection of study participants for the Delphi panel,...