Search

Objective To assess whether the risk of cardiovascular complications of covid-19 differ between the sexes and to determine whether any sex differences in risk are reduced in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular disease.Design Registry based observational study.Setting 74 hospitals across 13 countries (eight European) participating in CAPACITY-COVID (Cardiac complicAtions in Patients With SARS Corona vIrus 2 regisTrY), from March 2020 to May 2021Participants All adults (aged ≥18 years), predominantly European, admitted to hospital with highly suspected covid-19 disease or covid-19 disease confirmed by positive laboratory test results (n=11 167 patients).Main outcome measures Any cardiovascular complication during admission to hospital. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and individual cardiovascular complications with ≥20 events for each sex. Logistic regression was used to examine sex differences in the risk of cardiovascular outcomes, overall and grouped by pre-existing cardiovascular disease.Results Of 11 167 adults (median age 68 years, 40% female participants) included, 3423 (36% of whom were female participants) had pre-existing cardiovascular disease. In both sexes, the most common cardiovascular complications were supraventricular tachycardias (4% of female participants, 6% of male participants), pulmonary embolism (3% and 5%), and heart failure (decompensated or de novo) (2% in both sexes). After adjusting for age, ethnic group, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, female individuals were less likely than male individuals to have a cardiovascular complication (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.80) or die (0.65, 0.59 to 0.72). Differences between the sexes were not modified by pre-existing cardiovascular disease; for the primary outcome, the female-to-male ratio of the odds ratio in those without, compared with those with, pre-existing cardiovascular disease was 0.84 (0.67 to 1.07).Conclusions In patients admitted to hospital for covid-19, female participants were less likely than male participants to have a cardiovascular complication. The differences between the sexes could not be attributed to the lower prevalence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in female individuals. The reasons for this advantage in female individuals requires further research.

Background: Timely detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important because of its increased risk of thrombo-embolic events. Single time point screening interventions fall short in detection of paroxysmal AF, which requires prolonged electrocardiographic monitoring, usually using a Holter. However, traditional 24-48 h Holter monitoring is less appropriate for screening purposes because of its low diagnostic yield. Intermittent, ambulatory screening using a single-lead electrocardiogram (1 L-ECG) device can offer a more efficient alternative., Methods: Primary care patients of ≥65 years participated in an opportunistic screening study for AF. We invited patients with a negative 12 L-ECG to wear a Holter monitor for two weeks and to use a MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device thrice daily. We report the yield of paroxysmal AF found by Holter monitoring and calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the 1 L-ECG device's built-in AF detection algorithm with the Holter monitor as reference standard., Results: We included 270 patients, of whom four had AF in a median of 8.0 days of Holter monitoring, a diagnostic yield of 1.5% (95%-CI: 0.4-3.8%). In 205 patients we performed simultaneous 1 L-ECG screening. For diagnosing AF based on the 1 L-ECG device's AF detection algorithm, sensitivity was 66.7% (95%-CI: 9.4-99.2%), specificity 68.8% (95%-CI: 61.9-75.1%), positive predictive value 3.1% (95%-CI: 1.4-6.8%) and negative predictive value 99.3% (95%-CI: 96.6-99.9%)., Conclusion: We found a low diagnostic yield of paroxysmal AF using Holter monitoring in elderly primary care patients with a negative 12 L-ECG. The diagnostic accuracy of an intermittently, ambulatory used MyDiagnostick 1 L-ECG device as interpreted by its built-in AF detection algorithm is limited., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) are important given the serious health consequences. AF may be silent or paroxysmal and remain undetected. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) have appropriate equipment and optimally utilise it to detect AF. This case vignette study aimed to describe current practice and to explore possible improvements to optimise AF detection., Methods: Between June and July 2017, we performed an online case vignette study among Dutch GPs. We aimed at obtaining at least 75 responses to the questionnaire. We collected demographics and asked GPs' opinion on their knowledge and experience in diagnosing AF. GPs could indicate which diagnostic tools they have for AF. In six case vignettes with varying symptom frequency and physical signs, they could make diagnostic choices. The last questions covered screening and actions after diagnosing AF. We compared the answers to the Dutch guideline for GPs on AF., Results: Seventy-six GPs completed the questionnaire. Seventy-four GPs (97%) thought they have enough knowledge and 72 (95%) enough experience to diagnose AF. Seventy-four GPs (97%) could order or perform ECGs without the interference of a cardiologist. In case of frequent symptoms of AF, 36-40% would choose short-term (i.e. 24-48 h) and 11-19% long-term (i.e. 7 days, 14 days or 1 month) monitoring. In case of non-frequent symptoms, 29-31% would choose short-term and 21-30% long-term monitoring. If opportunistic screening in primary care proves to be effective, 83% (58/70) will support it., Conclusions: Responding GPs report to have adequate equipment, knowledge, and experience to detect and diagnose AF. Almost all participants can order ECGs. Reported monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by the guideline. AF detection could improve by increasing the monitoring duration.

Introduction: Detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is important given the risk of complications, such as stroke and heart failure, and the need for preventive measures. Detection is complicated because AF can be silent or paroxysmal. Describing current practice may give clues to improve AF detection. The aim of this study was to describe how cardiologists currently detect AF., Methods: Between December 2014 and May 2015, we sent Dutch cardiologists an online questionnaire. Firstly, we asked which tools for detection of AF their department has. Secondly, we presented six case vignettes related to AF, in which they could choose a diagnostic tool. Thirdly, we compared the results with current guidelines., Results: We approached 90 cardiology departments and 48 (53%) completed the questionnaire. In asymptomatic patients with risk factors according to CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, 40% of the cardiologists would screen for AF. In patients with signs or symptoms of AF, all but one cardiologist would start a diagnostic process. In both vignettes describing patients with non-frequent symptoms, 46% and 54% of the responders would use short-term (i. e. 24- or 48-hour) electrocardiographic monitoring, 48% and 27% would use long-term (i. e. 7 day, 14 day or one month) monitoring. In both cases describing patients with frequent symptoms, 85% of the responders would use short-term and 15% and 4% long-term monitoring., Conclusion: Dutch cardiologists have access to a wide variety of ambulatory arrhythmia monitoring tools. Nearly half of the cardiologists would perform opportunistic screening. In cases with non-frequent symptoms, monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by NICE.