Sex differences in treatment and outcomes of patients with in-hospital ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Two cohorts face high mortality after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): females and patients with in-hospital STEMI. The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in ischemic times and outcomes of in-hospital STEMI patients. METHODS: Consecutive STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were prospectively recruited from 30 hospitals into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (2013-2018). Sex discrepancies within in-hospital STEMIs were compared with out-of-hospital STEMIs. The primary endpoint was 12-month all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included symptom-to-device (STD) time and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). To investigate the relationship between sex and 12-month mortality for in-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMIs, an interaction analysis was included in the multivariable models. RESULTS: A total of 7493 STEMI patients underwent PCI of which 494 (6.6%) occurred in-hospital. In-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMIs comprised 31.9% and 19.9% females, respectively. Female in-hospital STEMIs were older (69.5 vs. 65.9 years, p = .003) with longer adjusted geometric mean STD times (104.6 vs. 94.3 min, p < .001) than men. Female versus male in-hospital STEMIs had no difference in 12-month mortality (27.1% vs. 20.3%, p = .92) and MACE (22.8% vs. 19.3%, p = .87). Female sex was not independently associated with 12-month mortality for in-hospital STEMIs which was consistent across the STEMI cohort (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.94-1.70, p = .13). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital STEMIs are more frequent in females relative to out-of-hospital STEMIs. Despite already being under medical care, females with in-hospital STEMIs experienced a 10-min mean excess in STD time compared with males, after adjustment for confounders. Adjusted 12-month mortality and MACE were similar to males.

Differences in outcomes of patients with in-hospital versus out-of-hospital ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a registry analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) that occur while already in hospital ('in-hospital STEMI') face high mortality. However, data about this patient population are scarce. We sought to investigate differences in reperfusion and outcomes of in-hospital versus out-of-hospital STEMI. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients with STEMI all treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across 30 centres were prospectively recruited into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (2013-2018). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Patients with in-hospital STEMI were compared with patients with out-of-hospital STEMI with a primary endpoint of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included ischaemic times, all-cause mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 7493 patients with PCI-treated STEMI, 494 (6.6%) occurred in-hospital. Patients with in-hospital STEMI were older (67.1 vs 62.4 years, p<0.001), more often women (32% vs 19.9%, p<0.001), with more comorbidities. Patients with in-hospital STEMI had higher 30-day MACE (20.4% vs 9.8%, p<0.001), mortality (12.1% vs 6.9%, p<0.001) and major bleeding (4.9% vs 2.3%, p<0.001), than patients with out-of-hospital STEMI. According to guideline criteria, patients with in-hospital STEMI achieved symptom-to-device times of ≤70 min and ≤90 min in 29% and 47%, respectively. Patients with out-of-hospital STEMI achieved door-to-device times of ≤90 min in 71%. Occurrence of STEMI while in hospital independently predicted higher MACE (adjusted OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.36, p<0.001) and 12-month mortality (adjusted OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.07, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with in-hospital STEMI experience delays to reperfusion with significantly higher MACE and mortality, compared with patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, after adjustment for confounders. Focused strategies are needed to improve recognition and outcomes in this high-risk and understudied population.

Rescue PCI in the management of STEMI: Contemporary results from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry.

BACKGROUND: Fibrinolysis is an important reperfusion strategy in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is unavailable. Rescue PCI is generally thought to have worse outcomes than PPCI in STEMI. We aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rescue PCI versus PPCI for treatment of STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients admitted with STEMI (excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) within the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2005 and 2018 treated with either rescue PCI or PPCI were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Comparison of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and long-term mortality between the two groups was performed. There were 558 patients (7.1%) with rescue PCI and 7271 with PPCI. 30-day all-cause mortality (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 5%, p = 0.47) and MACE (rescue PCI 10.3% vs. PPCI 8.9%, p = 0.26) rates were similar between the two groups. Rates of in-hospital major bleeding (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 3.4%, p = 0.002) and 30-day stroke (rescue PCI 2.2% vs. PPCI 0.8%, p < 0.001) were higher following rescue PCI. The odds ratio for haemorrhagic stroke in the rescue PCI group was 10.3. Long-term mortality was not significantly different between the groups (rescue PCI 20% vs. PPCI 19%, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: With contemporary interventional techniques and medical therapy, rescue PCI remains a valuable strategy for treating patients with failed fibrinolysis where PPCI is unavailable and it has been suggested in extenuating circumstances where alternative revascularisation strategies are considered.

Cardiovascular disease and COVID-19: Australian and New Zealand consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, and COVID-19 itself causes serious cardiac sequelae. Strategies to minimise the risk of viral transmission to health care workers and uninfected cardiac patients while prioritising high quality cardiac care are urgently needed. We conducted a rapid literature appraisal and review of key documents identified by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand Board and Council members, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, and key cardiology, surgical and public health opinion leaders. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Common acute cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 include left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, arrhythmias and acute coronary syndromes. The presence of underlying CVD confers a five- to tenfold higher case fatality rate with COVID-19 disease. Special precautions are needed to avoid viral transmission to this population at risk. Adaptive health care delivery models and resource allocation are required throughout the health care system to address this need. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Cardiovascular health services and cardiovascular health care providers need to recognise the increased risk of COVID-19 among CVD patients, upskill in the management of COVID-19 cardiac manifestations, and reorganise and innovate in service delivery models to meet demands. This consensus statement, endorsed by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons, the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia summarises important issues and proposes practical approaches to cardiovascular health care delivery to patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection.