Effect of Routine Invasive vs Conservative Strategy in Older Adults With Frailty and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Objective: To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, -7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, -63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.

One-year cardiovascular outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019: The cardiovascular COVID-19 registry.

BACKGROUND: The long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of COVID-19 have not been fully explored. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between February and December 2020. Consecutive patients ≥18 years who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts depending on the nasopharyngeal swab result and clinical status: confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR) and control (without suggestive symptoms and negative RT-PCR). Data were obtained from electronic records, and clinical follow-up was performed at 1-year. The primary outcome was CV death at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included arterial thrombotic events (ATE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and serious cardiac arrhythmias. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated events. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for all baseline characteristics was used for comparing outcomes between groups. A prespecified landmark analysis was performed to assess events during the post-acute phase (31-365 days). RESULTS: A total of 4,427 patients were included: 3,578 (80.8%) in the COVID-19 and 849 (19.2%) control cohorts. At one year, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of CV death between the COVID-19 and control cohorts (1.4% vs. 0.8%; HRadj 1.28 [0.56-2.91]; p = 0.555), but there was a higher risk of all-cause death (17.8% vs. 4.0%; HRadj 2.82 [1.99-4.0]; p = 0.001). COVID-19 cohort had higher rates of ATE (2.5% vs. 0.8%, HRadj 2.26 [1.02-4.99]; p = 0.044), VTE (3.7% vs. 0.4%, HRadj 9.33 [2.93-29.70]; p = 0.001), and serious cardiac arrhythmias (2.5% vs. 0.6%, HRadj 3.37 [1.35-8.46]; p = 0.010). During the post-acute phase, there were no significant differences in CV death (0.6% vs. 0.7%; HRadj 0.67 [0.25-1.80]; p = 0.425), but there was a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.028). Re-hospitalization rate was lower in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the control cohort (13.9% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year, patients with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of all-cause death and adverse CV events, including ATE, VTE, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, but not CV death. STUDY REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04359927.

Efficacy of short-course colchicine treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation: a randomized clinical trial.

Some patients with COVID-19 pneumonia develop an associated cytokine storm syndrome that aggravates the pulmonary disease. These patients may benefit of anti-inflammatory treatment. The role of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation remains unexplored. In a prospective, randomized controlled, observer-blinded endpoint, investigator-initiated trial, 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation were randomly allocated to receive oral colchicine or not. The primary efficacy outcome measure was a composite of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (CPAP or BiPAP), admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or death. The composite primary outcome occurred in 19.3% of the total study population. The composite primary outcome was similar in the two arms (17% in colchicine group vs. 20.8% in the control group; p = 0.533) and the same applied to each of its individual components. Most patients received steroids (98%) and heparin (99%), with similar doses in both groups. In this trial, including adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and associated hyperinflammation, no clinical benefit was observed with short-course colchicine treatment beyond standard care regarding the combined outcome measurement of CPAP/BiPAP use, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death (Funded by the Community of Madrid, EudraCT Number: 2020-001841-38; 26/04/2020).

Long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on the cardiovascular system, CV COVID registry: A structured summary of a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with the coronavirus-2019 disease (COVID-19) may have a high risk of cardiovascular adverse events, including death from cardiovascular causes. The long-term cardiovascular outcomes of these patients are entirely unknown. We aim to perform a registry of patients who have undergone a diagnostic nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 and to determine their long-term cardiovascular outcomes. STUDY AND DESIGN: This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective registry to be conducted at 17 centers in Spain and Italy (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04359927). Consecutive patients older than 18 years, who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 in the participating institutions, will be included since March 2020, to August 2020. Patients will be classified into two groups, according to the results of the RT-PCR: COVID-19 positive or negative. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality at 1 year. The secondary outcomes will be acute myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, pulmonary embolism, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, at 1 year. Outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Events will be adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. CONCLUSION: The results of this registry will contribute to a better understanding of the long-term cardiovascular implications of the COVID19.

Impact of diabetes in patients waiting for invasive cardiac procedures during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, elective invasive cardiac procedures (ICP) have been frequently cancelled or postponed. Consequences may be more evident in patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the peculiarities of patients with DM among those in whom ICP were cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to identify subgroups in which the influence of DM has higher impact on the clinical outcome. METHODS: We included 2,158 patients in whom an elective ICP was cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic in 37 hospitals in Spain. Among them, 700 (32.4%) were diabetics. Patients with and without diabetes were compared. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes were older and had a higher prevalence of other cardiovascular risk factors, previous cardiovascular history and co-morbidities. Diabetics had a higher mortality (3.0% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (1.9% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.001). Differences were especially important in patients with valvular heart disease (mortality 6.9% vs 1.7% [p < 0.001] and cardiovascular mortality 4.9% vs 0.9% [p = 0.002] in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). In the multivariable analysis, diabetes remained as an independent risk factor both for overall and cardiovascular mortality. No significant interaction was found with other clinical variables. CONCLUSION: Among patients in whom an elective invasive cardiac procedure is cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic, mortality and cardiovascular mortality is higher in patients with diabetes, irrespectively on other clinical conditions. These procedures should not be cancelled in patients with diabetes.

Consequences of canceling elective invasive cardiac procedures during Covid-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, elective procedures were canceled or postponed, mainly due to health care systems overwhelming. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences of interrupting invasive procedures in patients with chronic cardiac diseases due to the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. METHODS: The study population is comprised of 2,158 patients that were pending on elective cardiac invasive procedures in 37 hospitals in Spain on the 14th of March 2020, when a state of alarm and subsequent lockdown was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These patients were followed-up until April 31th. RESULTS: Out of the 2,158 patients, 36 (1.7%) died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients pending on structural procedures (4.5% vs. 0.8%, respectively; p < .001), in those >80 year-old (5.1% vs. 0.7%, p < .001), and in presence of diabetes (2.7% vs. 0.9%, p = .001), hypertension (2.0% vs. 0.6%, p = .014), hypercholesterolemia (2.0% vs. 0.9%, p = .026) [Correction added on December 23, 2020, after first online publication: as per Dr. Moreno's request changes in p-values were made after original publication in Abstract.], chronic renal failure (6.0% vs. 1.2%, p < .001), NYHA > II (3.8% vs. 1.2%, p = .001), and CCS > II (4.2% vs. 1.4%, p = .013), whereas was it was significantly lower in smokers (0.5% vs. 1.9%, p = .013). Multivariable analysis identified age > 80, diabetes, renal failure and CCS > II as independent predictors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Mortality at 45 days during COVID-19 outbreak in patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases included in a waiting list due to cancellation of invasive elective procedures was 1.7%. Some clinical characteristics may be of help in patient selection for being promptly treated when similar situations happen in the future.

Severe coronary spasm in a COVID-19 patient.

Myocardial injury is frequently detected in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, up to one-third of COVID-19 patients showing ST-segment elevation on the electrocardiogram have angiographically normal coronary arteries. We present a case of an acute coronary syndrome due to a coronary spasm in a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patient. This pathophysiological mechanism was clearly demonstrated by intracoronary imaging techniques (optical coherence tomography) and invasive vasospasm test.