Comparison of thrombus burden in patients with COVID-19 presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction across the three waves of outbreak in the United Kingdom

Background

It has been previously reported during the first COVID outbreak that patients presenting with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) and concurrent COVID-19 infection have increased thrombus burden and poorer outcomes [1]. Subsequently, there have been multiple further waves of the pandemic with the emergence of at least two new COVID-19 variants and the emergence of vaccinations. To-date, there have been no reports comparing the outcomes of COVID-19-positive STEMI patients across all waves of the pandemic.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the baseline demographic, procedural and angiographic characteristics alongside the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with STEMI and concurrent COVID-19 infection across the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Methods

This was a single-centre, observational study of 1250 consecutive patients admitted with confirmed STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at Barts Heart Centre between 01/03/2020 and 10/03/2022. COVID +ve patients were split into 3 groups based upon the time course of the pandemic (Wave 1: March 2020-June 2020, Wave 2: Sept 2020-March 2021, Wave 3: October 2021-March 2022). Comparison was made between waves and with a control group of COVID-ve patients treated during the same timeframe.

Results

A total of 135 COVID +ive patients with STEMI (1st Wave: 39 patients, 2nd Wave: 60 patients, 3rd wave 35 pts) were included in the present analysis; and compared with 1115 COVID negative patients. Significant changes in the baseline characteristics, angiographic features and clinical outcomes of COVID +ive patients occurred over time. Early during the pandemic (Wave 1 2020), STEMI patients presenting with concurrent COVID-19 infection had high rates of cardiac arrest, evidence of increased thrombus burden (higher rates of multi-vessel thrombosis, stent thrombosis, higher modified thrombus grade higher use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and thrombus aspiration, coagulability (more heparin for therapeutic ACT), bigger infarcts (lower myocardial blush grade and left ventricular function) and worse outcomes (mortality). However, by wave 3 (late 2021/2022), no differences existed in clinical characteristics, thrombus burden, infarct size or outcomes between COVID +ive patients and those without concurrent COVID-19 infection with significant differences compared to earlier COVID +ve patients. Poor outcomes later in the study period were predominantly in unvaccinated individuals.

Conclusions

Significant changes have occurred in the clinical characteristics, angiographic features and outcomes of STEMI patients with COVID-19 infection treated by primary PCI during the course of the pandemic. Importantly it appears that angiographic features and outcomes of recent waves are no different to a non-COVID-19 population.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Joint British Societies' guideline on management of cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheter laboratory

More than 300 000 procedures are performed in cardiac catheter laboratories in the UK each year. The variety and complexity of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures have both increased substantially since the early days of invasive cardiology, when it was largely focused on elective coronary angiography and single chamber (right ventricular) permanent pacemaker implantation. Modern-day invasive cardiology encompasses primary percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, complex arrhythmia ablation and structural heart interventions. These procedures all carry the risk of cardiac arrest.We have developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of cardiac arrest in adult patients in the catheter laboratory. The guidelines include recommendations which were developed by collaboration between nine professional and patient societies that are involved in promoting high-quality care for patients with cardiovascular conditions. We present a set of protocols which use the skills of the whole catheter laboratory team and which are aimed at achieving the best possible outcomes for patients who suffer a cardiac arrest in this setting. We identified six roles and developed a treatment algorithm which should be adopted during cardiac arrest in the catheter laboratory. We recommend that all catheter laboratory staff undergo regular training for these emergency situations which they will inevitably face.

Getting the best from the Heart Team: guidance for cardiac multidisciplinary meetings

The purpose of this document is to update the existing joint British Societies recommendations on multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) published in 2015 to reflect changes in practice. We aim to provide guidance on the structure and function of MDMs which should be taking place in every cardiac surgical centre. Out of scope are MDMs that do not require the routine presence of a cardiac surgeon such as electrophysiology MDMs and those which are not provided in every centre, such as complex aortic surgery.

Expert Opinion: Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Non-cardiac Surgery: Out of Date and Overly Prescriptive

Patients with severe aortic stenosis who require non-cardiac surgery present a difficult clinical problem. The most recent clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology for the perioperative cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were both published in 2014. These guidelines are reviewed in the light of recently published randomised controlled trial data regarding the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation to treat aortic stenosis.

An exploratory randomized control study of combination cytokine and adult autologous bone marrow progenitor cell administration in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: the REGENERATE-IHD clinical trial

Aims

The effect of combined cytokine and cell therapy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy is unknown. Meta‐analyses suggest improved cardiac function with cell therapy. The optimal cell delivery route remains unclear. We investigated whether granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) alone or in combination with intracoronary (i.c.) or intramyocardial (i.m.) injection of autologous bone marrow‐derived cells (BMCs) improves cardiac function.

Methods and results

Ninety patients with symptomatic ischaemic cardiomyopathy and no further treatment options were enrolled in the randomized, placebo‐controlled, single‐centre REGENERATE‐IHD study. Randomization was to one of three arms: peripheral, i.c., or i.m. In each arm, patients were randomized to active treatment or placebo. All patients, apart from the peripheral placebo group (saline only) received G‐CSF for 5 days. The i.c. and i.m. arms received either BMCs or serum (placebo). The primary endpoint was change in LVEF at 1 year assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography. The i.m. BMC group showed a significant improvement in LVEF of 4.99% (95% confidence interval 0.33–9.6%; P = 0.038) at 1 year. This group also showed a reduction in NYHA class at 1 year and NT‐proBNP at 6 months. No other group showed a significant change in LVEF. This finding is supported by post‐hoc between‐group comparisons.

Conclusion

We have shown that G‐CSF combined with autologous i.m. BMCs has a beneficial effect on cardiac function and symptoms. However, this result should be considered preliminary in support of a clinical benefit of i.m. stem cell infusion in ‘no option’ patients and needs further exploration in a larger study.

Time-trend analyses of bleeding and mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention during out of working hours versus in-working hours: an observational study of 11 466 patients

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Resources are limited during out of working hours (OWH). Whether PPCI outside working hours is associated with worse outcomes and whether outcomes have improved over time are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed 11 466 patients undergoing PPCI between 2004 and 2011 at all 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London, United Kingdom. We defined working hours as 9 am to 5 pm (Monday to Friday). We analyzed in-hospital bleeding and all-cause mortality ≤3 years, comparing OWH versus in-working hours. A total of 7494 patients (65.3%) were treated during OWH. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that PPCI during OWH was not a predictor for bleeding (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-2.24; P=0.071) or 3-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.32; P=0.20). This was confirmed in propensity-matched analyses. Time-stratified analyses demonstrated that PPCI during OWH was a predictor for bleeding (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.06-3.80; P=0.034) and 3-year mortality during 2005 to 2008 (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50; P=0.050), but this association was lost during 2009 to 2011. During 2005 to 2008, transradial access was predominantly used during in-working hours and PPCI during OWH was predictive of reduced transradial access use (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P=0.033), but this association was lost during 2009 to 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of unselected patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, PPCI during OWH versus in-working hours had comparable bleeding and mortality. Time-stratified analyses demonstrated a reduction in adjusted bleeding and mortality during OWH over time. This may reflect the improved service provision, but the increased adoption of transradial access during OWH may also be contributory.

Long-term survival in patients undergoing percutaneous interventions with or without intracoronary pressure wire guidance or intracoronary ultrasonographic imaging: a large cohort study

IMPORTANCE

Intracoronary pressure wire-derived measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) provide functional and anatomical information that can be used to guide coronary stent implantation. Although these devices are widely used and recommended by guidelines, limited data exist about their effect on clinical end points.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect on long-term survival of using FFR and IVUS during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort study based on the pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry. In total, 64,232 patients are included in this registry covering the London, England, area.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients (n = 41,688) who underwent elective or urgent PCI in National Health Service hospitals in London between January 1, 2004, and July 31, 2011, were included. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 11,370) were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent PCI guided by angiography (visual lesion assessment) alone, PCI guided by FFR, or IVUS-guided PCI.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was all-cause mortality at a median of 3.3 years.

RESULTS

Fractional flow reserve was used in 2767 patients (6.6%) and IVUS was used in 1831 patients (4.4%). No difference in mortality was observed between patients who underwent angiography-guided PCI compared with patients who underwent FFR-guided PCI (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67-1.16; P = .37). Patients who underwent IVUS had a slightly higher adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78; P = .009) compared with patients who underwent angiography-guided PCI. However, this difference was no longer statistically significant in a propensity score-based analysis (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85-2.09; P = .25). The mean (SD) number of implanted stents was lower in the FFR group (1.1 [1.2] stents) compared with the IVUS group (1.6 [1.3]) and the angiography-guided group (1.7 [1.1]) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large observational study, FFR-guided PCI and IVUS-guided PCI were not associated with improved long-term survival compared with standard angiography-guided PCI. The use of FFR was associated with the implantation of fewer stents.

Case fatality rates for South Asian and Caucasian patients show no difference 2.5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To compare short and medium-term prognosis in South Asian and Caucasian patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to determine if there are ethnic differences in case death rates.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A cardiology referral centre in east London.

PATIENTS

9771 patients who underwent PCI from October 2003 to December 2007 of whom 7966 (81.5%) were Caucasian and 1805 (18.5%) were South Asian.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, stroke and target vessel revascularisation), subsequent revascularisation rates (PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting; CABG) and all-cause mortality during a median follow-up of 2.5 years (range 1.5-3.6 years).

RESULTS

South Asian patients were younger than Caucasian patients (59.69±0.27 vs 64.69±0.13 years, p<0.0001), and more burdened by cardiovascular risk factors, particularly type II diabetes mellitus (45.9%±1.2% vs 15.7%±0.4%, p<0.0001). The in-hospital rates of MACE were similar for South Asians and Caucasians (3.5% vs 2.8%, p=0.40). South Asians had higher rates of clinically driven PCI for restenosis and subsequent CABG, although Kaplan-Meier estimates of all-cause mortality showed no significant differences; this was regardless of whether PCI was performed post-acute coronary syndrome or as an elective procedure. The adjusted hazard of death for South Asians compared with Caucasians was 1.00 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.23).

CONCLUSION

In this large PCI cohort, the in-hospital and longer-term mortality of South Asians appeared no worse than that of Caucasians. South Asians had higher rates of restenosis and CABG during follow-up. Data suggest that the excess coronary mortality for South Asians compared with Caucasians is not explained by differences in case-fatality rates.