Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias related to COVID infection and vaccination in patients with Brugada syndrome: Insights from a large Italian multicenter registry based on continuous rhythm monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome (BrS) has a dynamic ECG pattern that might be revealed by certain conditions such as fever. We evaluated the incidence and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination among BrS patients carriers of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients were carriers of devices with remote monitoring follow-up. We recorded VAs 6 months before COVID-19 infection or vaccination, during infection, at each vaccination, and up to 6-month post-COVID-19 or 1 month after the last vaccination. In ICD carriers, we documented any device intervention. RESULTS: We included 326 patients, 202 with an ICD and 124 with an ILR. One hundred and nine patients (33.4%) had COVID-19, 55% of whom developed fever. Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection was 2.76%. After infection, we recorded only two ventricular tachycardias (VTs). After the first, second, and third vaccines, the incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was 1.5%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The incidence of VT was 1% after the second dose. Six-month post-COVID-19 healing or 1 month after the last vaccine, we documented NSVT in 3.4%, VT in 0.5%, and ventricular fibrillation in 0.5% of patients. Overall, one patient received anti-tachycardia pacing and one a shock. ILR carriers had no VAs. No differences were found in VT before and after infection and before and after each vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: From this large multicenter study conducted in BrS patients, followed by remote monitoring, the overall incidence of sustained VAs after COVID-19 infection and vaccination is relatively low.

[2020 Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing]. / Registro Italiano Ablazioni 2020. Associazione Italiana di Aritmologia e Cardiostimolazione.

BACKGROUND: This report describes the findings of the 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). METHODS: Data collection was retrospective. A standardized questionnaire was completed by each of the participating centers. RESULTS: A total of 10 378 ablation procedures were performed by 66 institutions. Most centers (70%) have an electrophysiology laboratory, and 23% a hybrid cardiac surgery laboratory. All centers have a 3D mapping system. The median number of electrophysiologists and nurses involved in the electrophysiology laboratory was 3.5 and 3, respectively. An electrophysiology technician was involved in 35% of all centers. In 88.2% of cases, catheter ablation was performed for supraventricular arrhythmias; the most frequently treated arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation (39.4%), followed by atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (18.6%), and common atrial flutter (10.6%). In 72.9% of patients, catheter ablation was performed using a 3D mapping system, with a "near-zero" fluoroscopic approach in 37.7% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry confirmed that the electrophysiology activity was markedly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; atrial fibrillation is the most frequently treated arrhythmia with an increasing number of procedures performed with a 3D mapping system and a "near-zero" approach.

The Feasibility, Effectiveness and Acceptance of Virtual Visits as Compared to In-Person Visits among Clinical Electrophysiology Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).

BACKGROUND: The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care. METHODS: A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched. RESULTS: A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined. CONCLUSIONS: The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

The role of virtual visits in cardiology: from the pandemic era to future perspectives

Aims During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in-person visits were reduced to prevent potential risk of exposure. Virtual visits (VVs) represent an innovative model to take care of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of VV in the management of CIED patients. Methods and results We performed a prospective study including all CIED patients who received a VV from July 2020 to July 2021. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and body weight were registered by the patient. Moreover, we sent to the patient a questionnaire to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction about VV. We enrolled 182 patients in the study period. The mean age of patients was 70.2 ± 13.5 years-old and the majority (61.1%) was male. In two cases, VVs were not performed due to technical issues. Overall, 70.9% of patients utilized a smartphone, while 20.1% and 9% used, respectively, a tablet or a personal computer. The mean duration of VV was 27.8 ± 7.8 min. Patients helped by a caregiver were 64 (35.2%). One urgent/emergent in‐person visit was performed in a patient with acute heart failure. Overall, VV was preferred to in-person evaluation. Conclusion VV is a safe and feasible approach to follow-up CIED patients. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached after VV. The use of VV has promising potential and should be implemented beyond COVID-19 period and integrated in the healthcare system as a new model of care.

ACE-I and ARBS do not influence the chest CT presentation and 1-year survival of COVID-19 patients: Italian multicentre registry

Aims A possible interference between ACE-i or ARBs with ACE-2 receptor and SARS-CoV-2 pathway has been raised. Despite data have shown no clinical impact of therapy with ACE-I or ARBs on COVID-19, these drugs are often discontinued upon hospitalization or diagnosis. To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and prior outpatient therapy with RAAS inhibitors on the chest CT severity score performed within 24 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (before stopping medications or starting specific therapy for COVID-19) and on 1-year survival. Methods and results This is a multicentre, prospective, observational study. All admitted patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who performed chest CT within 24 h of arrival were consecutively enrolled from 1 March to 1 June 2020. A severity score was attributed to Chest CT by two radiologists in blind to the patient’s clinical information and a cut-off value of 19.5 was considered to define severe radiological pneumonia. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed in order to evaluate the determinants of 1-year survival. 590 patients with a mean age of 63 ± 14 years were included. Seventy-three (12.4%) patients were treated with ACE-I, 85 (14.4%) with ARBs and 62 (10.5%) with CCB. Cox regression analysis showed that male gender (OR: 1.4;95% CI: from 1.02 to 2.07;P = 0.035), diabetes (OR: 1.6;95% CI: from 1.03 to 2.7;P = 0.037), age (OR: 1.02;95% CI: from 1.008 to 1.033;P = 0.001), and obesity (OR: 3.04;95% CI: from 1.3 to 6.7;P < 0.001) were independently associated with a severe CT score. Of note, while prior outpatient therapy with ACE-I and ARBs was not independently associated with severe CT score, therapy with CCB was independently associated with a severe CT score (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.4, P = 0.033). Severe chest CT severity score (OR: 1.05;95% CI: from 1.02 to 1.08;P < 0.001), P/F ratio (OR: 0.998;95% CI: from 0.994 to 0.998;P < 0.001), and older age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: from 1.03 to 1.1;P < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality at 1-year follow-up. Neither ACE-I, ARBs, and CCB were associated with mortality at 1 year follow-up. Conclusions ACE-I and ARBs do not influence the chest CT presentation of COVID-19 patients at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, ACE-I and ARBs do not influence 1-year survival of COVID-19 survivors.

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey. METHODS: Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure. RESULTS: The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe. CONCLUSION: CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.

Enhanced platelet inhibition treatment improves hypoxemia in patients with severe Covid-19 and hypercoagulability. A case control, proof of concept study.

Patients affected by severe coronavirus induced disease-2019 (Covid-19) often experience hypoxemia due to alveolar involvement and endothelial dysfunction, which leads to the formation of micro thrombi in the pulmonary capillary vessels. Both hypoxemia and a prothrombotic diathesis have been associated with more severe disease and increased risk of death. To date, specific indications to treat this condition are lacking. This was a single center, investigator initiated, compassionate use, proof of concept, case control, phase IIb study (NCT04368377) conducted in the Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit of L. Sacco University Hospital in Milano, Italy. Our objective was to explore the effects of the administration of anti-platelet therapy on arterial oxygenation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 with hypercoagulability. We enrolled five consecutive patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe respiratory failure requiring helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilateral pulmonary infiltrates and a pro-thrombotic state identified as a D-dimer > 3 times the upper limit of normal. Five patients matched for age, D-dimer value and SOFA score formed the control group. Beyond standard of care, treated patients received 25 µg/Kg/body weight tirofiban as bolus infusion, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.15 µg/Kg/body weight per minute for 48 hours. Before tirofiban, patients received acetylsalicylic acid 250 mg infusion and oral clopidogrel 300 mg; both were continued at a dose of 75 mg daily for 30 days. Fondaparinux2.5 mg/day sub-cutaneous was given for the duration of the hospital stay. All controls were receiving prophylactic or therapeutic dose heparin, according to local standard operating procedures. Treated patients consistently experienced a mean (SD) reduction in A-a O2 gradient of -32.6 mmHg (61.9, P = 0.154), -52.4 mmHg (59.4, P = 0.016) and -151.1 mmHg (56.6, P = 0.011; P = 0.047 vs. controls) at 24, 48 hours and 7 days after treatment. PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased by 52 mmHg (50, P = 0.172), 64 mmHg (47, P = 0.040) and 112 mmHg (51, P = 0.036) after 24, 48 hours and 7 days, respectively. All patients but one were successfully weaned from CPAP after 3 days. This was not true for the control group. No major adverse events were observed. Antiplatelet therapy might be effective in improving the ventilation/perfusion ratio in Covid-19 patients with severe respiratory failure. The effects might be sustained by the prevention and interference on forming clots in lung capillary vessels and by modulating megakaryocytes' function and platelet adhesion. Randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these results.

Arrhythmic safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients from different clinical settings.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to describe ECG modifications and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients undergoing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in different clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: COVID-19 patients at seven institutions receiving HCQ therapy from whom a baseline and at least one ECG at 48+ h were available were enrolled in the study. QT/QTc prolongation, QT-associated and QT-independent arrhythmic events, arrhythmic mortality, and overall mortality during HCQ therapy were assessed. A total of 649 COVID-19 patients (61.9 ± 18.7 years, 46.1% males) were enrolled. HCQ therapy was administrated as a home therapy regimen in 126 (19.4%) patients, and as an in-hospital-treatment to 495 (76.3%) hospitalized and 28 (4.3%) intensive care unit (ICU) patients. At 36-72 and at 96+ h after the first HCQ dose, 358 and 404 ECGs were obtained, respectively. A significant QT/QTc interval prolongation was observed (P < 0.001), but the magnitude of the increase was modest [+13 (9-16) ms]. Baseline QT/QTc length and presence of fever (P = 0.001) at admission represented the most important determinants of QT/QTc prolongation. No arrhythmic-related deaths were reported. The overall major ventricular arrhythmia rate was low (1.1%), with all events found not to be related to QT or HCQ therapy at a centralized event evaluation. No differences in QT/QTc prolongation and QT-related arrhythmias were observed across different clinical settings, with non-QT-related arrhythmias being more common in the intensive care setting. CONCLUSION: HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths.

Acute Coronary Syndromes and Covid-19: Exploring the Uncertainties.

Since an association between myocardial infarction (MI) and respiratory infections has been described for influenza viruses and other respiratory viral agents, understanding possible physiopathological links between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is of the greatest importance. The initial data suggest an underestimation of ACS cases all over the world, but acute MI still represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and should not be overshadowed during the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. No common consensus regarding the most adequate healthcare management policy for ACS is currently available. Indeed, important differences have been reported between the measures employed to treat ACS in China during the first disease outbreak and what currently represents clinical practice across Europe and the USA. This review aims to discuss the pathophysiological links between MI, respiratory infections, and Covid-19; epidemiological data related to ACS at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic; and learnings that have emerged so far from several catheterization labs and coronary care units all over the world, in order to shed some light on the current strategies for optimal management of ACS patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Oral anticoagulation and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: An Italian multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Since the body of evidence addressing the coagulation derangements caused by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been constantly growing, we investigated whether pre-hospitalization oral anticoagulation (OAC) or in-hospital heparin treatment could have a protective role among COVID-19 patients. METHOD: In this cohort study, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to four different Italian Institutions were enrolled. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, as well as in-hospital treatment and outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was mortality. RESULTS: A total of 844 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as study cohort, n = 65 (7.7%) taking OACs prior to hospitalization. Regarding clinical outcomes, OAC patients developed acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) more frequently than non-OAC patients as well as presenting a higher mortality rate (44.6% vs 19.8%, p < 0.001). At overall multivariate logistical regression, use of heparin (n = 394, 46.6%) was associated with a better chance of survival to hospital discharge (OR 0.60 [0.38-0.94], p < 0.001), in particular in patients with AHRF, with no association found with the use of OACs. In a sub-analysis, the highest mortality rate was found for AHRF patients when heparin was not administered. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, OACs appeared to be ineffective in reducing mortality rate, while heparin resulted to be a useful treatment when lung disease was sufficiently severe, potentially suggesting a crucial role of microthrombosis in severe COVID-19. Due to the relatively small number of COVID-19 patients treated with OACs included in our analysis and their higher number of comorbidities, larger studies are needed in order to confirm our findings.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical activities related to arrhythmias and electrophysiology in Italy: results of a survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing).

COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.

Cardiac and arrhythmic complications in patients with COVID-19.

In December 2019, the world started to face a new pandemic situation, the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although coronavirus disease (COVID-19) clinical manifestations are mainly respiratory, major cardiac complications are being reported. Cardiac manifestations etiology seems to be multifactorial, comprising direct viral myocardial damage, hypoxia, hypotension, enhanced inflammatory status, ACE2-receptors downregulation, drug toxicity, endogenous catecholamine adrenergic status, among others. Studies evaluating patients with COVID-19 presenting cardiac injury markers show that it is associated with poorer outcomes, and arrhythmic events are not uncommon. Besides, drugs currently used to treat the COVID-19 are known to prolong the QT interval and can have a proarrhythmic propensity. This review focus on COVID-19 cardiac and arrhythmic manifestations and, in parallel, makes an appraisal of other virus epidemics as SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and H1N1 influenza.