Missed Opportunities in the Diagnosis of Heart Failure: Evaluation of Pathways to Determine Sources of Delay to Specialist Evaluation.

Missed opportunities are incidents where different actions by those involved could have resulted in more desirable events. Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome presenting as symptoms and signs common to other diagnoses, in patients frequently with multiple co-morbidities. Heart failure itself is not a diagnosis, but is the common clinical presentation of a variety of cardiac conditions. Correct diagnosis involves amalgamation of the clinical presentation, the results of general and specific investigations, and the clinician's ability to synthesize the overall picture. It is not surprising therefore that misdiagnosis can occur at any level of the heart failure journey and can occur because of patient, clinician, and health economy related factors. Delayed diagnosis leads to excess morbidity and mortality in these patients. In this review, we define the pathways for diagnosis of heart failure and then highlight missed opportunities related to delay and misdiagnosis. In addition, we consider how the earlier opportunity may impact patients, clinicians and health services.

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service is associated with inpatient-bed cost savings

In a cardiology department, there are some patients that require long-term antibiotics, such as those with infective endocarditis or infected prosthetic devices. We describe our experience with intravenous antibiotic therapy for patients with cardiology diagnoses who require a period of antibiotics in our outpatient service during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 15 patients were selected to have outpatient antibiotic therapy (age range 36 to 97 years, 60% male). A total of nine patients had infective endocarditis, four patients had infected valve prosthesis or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) endocarditis, one patient had infected pericardial effusion while another had infected pericarditis. For these 15 patients there was a total of 333 hospital bed-days, on average 22 days per patient. These patients also had a total of 312 days of outpatient antibiotic therapy, which was an average of 21 days per patient. The total cost, if patients were admitted for those days, assuming a night cost £400, was £124,800, which was on average £8,320 per patient. Three patients were readmitted within 30 days. One had ongoing endocarditis that was managed medically and another had pulmonary embolism. The last patient had a side effect related to daptomycin use. In conclusion, outpatient antibiotic therapy in selected patients with native or prosthetic infective endocarditis appears to be safe for a selected group of patients with associated cost savings.

Mid-term follow-up and outcomes of patients with prosthetic heart valves: a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prosthetic heart valves (PHV) require long-term follow-up, usually within a physiologist led heart valve surveillance clinic. These clinics are well established providing safe and effective patient care. The disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic on services has increased wait times thus we undertook a service evaluation to better understand the patients currently within the service and PHV related complications. METHODS: A clinical service evaluation of the heart valve surveillance clinic was undertaken to assess patient demographics, rates of complications and patient outcomes in patients who had undergone a PHV intervention at our institute between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients (mean age at time of PHV intervention: 71 ± 12 years, 68.7% male) were included in this service evaluation. Follow-up was 5.9 ± 2.7 years (range: 10 years). 37.1% underwent baseline transthoracic echo (TTE) assessment and 83% underwent annual TTE follow-up. Significant valve related complications were reported in 20 (6.8%) patients. Complications included a change in patient functional status secondary to significant PHV regurgitation (0.3%) or stenosis (0.3%), PHV thrombosis (0.3%) or infective endocarditis (3.7%). Significant valve related complications resulted in ten hospital admission (3.4%), two re-do interventions (0.6%), and four deaths (1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This service evaluation highlights the large number of patients requiring ongoing surveillance. Only a small proportion of patients develop significant PHV related complications resulting in a low incidence of re-do interventions and deaths.

The impact of COVID-19 on the patient, clinician, healthcare services and society: A patient pathway review.

The spread of COVID-19 infection has changed the world. Population-based studies of COVID-19 are limited because it is unknown why events happen or why certain outcomes occur. An alternative approach called the patient pathway review evaluates what happens to individuals in detail. In the "ideal" pathway patients with COVID-19 will seek medical attention and COVID-19 will be identified and they will either be admitted to hospital, managed in the community or they will self-care. However, in the "real-world" pathway, patients may delay seeking medical attention and it is variable who the patient decides to seek help from and some patients may be initially misdiagnosed. The eventual outcome will be recovery from the acute infection or death but there may be a spectrum of healthcare needs for patients from those who care for themselves in the community to those who are hospitalized and require intensive care. The patients may or may not have short- and long-term adverse effects. People infected with COVID-19 can take on different paths which depend on the patient's decision making, clinical decision making, and the patient's response to the infection. Desirable pathways are those where patients have good outcomes and also limit the transmission of the virus.

Cardiology referrals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a health service evaluation

Background/Aims The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented changes to healthcare services. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referrals to cardiology services in a tertiary hospital. Methods Royal Stoke University Hospital has a cardiac assessment nurse team that provides rapid access to specialist cardiology opinion. All referrals are recorded on a database, which was used to determine how COVID-19 affected the number and types of referrals to cardiology during March–September 2019 and March–September 2020. Results A total of 12 447 referrals were made to the cardiac assessment nurse teams over the evaluation period. Compared to the average number of referrals across all months, there was a decline of 10.5%, 31.2% and 18.5% during March, April and May 2019 respectively. Comparing 2020 to 2019, there were more 999 calls (17.7% vs 15.7%) and accident and emergency referrals (46.5% vs 45.0%), and fewer interhospital referrals (16.0% vs 19.6%). In terms of advice provided for the 999 referrals, a greater number were advised to go to the accident and emergency department (10.5% vs 0%) and direct phone advice provided to those in other settings increased (11.7% vs 0.1%) in 2020. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in the number of overall referrals to cardiology, while also demonstrating a shift towards more advice to attend the accident and emergency department for assessment or direct phone advice being provided about management in the community.

Readmission after index hospital discharge among patients with COVID-19: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hospital readmissions among COVID-19 patients have increased the load on the healthcare systems and added more pressure to hospital capacity. This affects the ability to accommodate newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients and other non-COVID-19 patients who require hospitalization. Therefore, this systematic review aims to understand the rates of and risk factors for hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality among COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized after being discharged following index hospitalization. METHODS: Our systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021232324) and prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), MedRxiv, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), ProQuest Coronavirus research database, Cochrane Covid-19 study register, and WHO COVID-19: Global literature on coronavirus disease will be identified from December 31, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Two investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts and select studies reporting hospital readmissions among COVID-19 patients. Further, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be carried out separately by these independent reviewers. We will extract data on demographics, readmissions, all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, comorbidities, and factors associated with hospitalization among COVID-19 patients. Random-effect meta-analysis will be performed if homogeneous groups of studies are found. The combined evidence will be further stratified according to important background characteristics if the data allow. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will summarize the available epidemiological evidence regarding rates of hospital readmissions, comorbidities, and related factors among COVID-19 patients who were readmitted after index hospitalization. A better understanding of the relationship between patient profiles and the rate of hospitalization will be helpful in the development of guidelines for patient management.

Methods to disinfect and decontaminate SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review of in vitro studies.

BACKGROUND: Cleaning is a major control component for outbreaks of infection. However, for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there is limited specific guidance regarding the proper disinfection methods that should be used. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cleaning, disinfection or decontamination methods in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included, reporting a variety of methods with which the effectiveness of interventions were assessed. Virus was inoculated onto different types of material including masks, nasopharyngeal swabs, serum, laboratory plates and simulated saliva, tears or nasal fluid and then interventions were applied in an attempt to eliminate the virus including chemical, ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation, and heat and humidity. At body temperature (37°C) there is evidence that the virus will not be detectable after 2 days but this can be reduced to non-detection at 30 min at 56°C, 15 min at 65°C and 2 min at 98°C. Different experimental methods testing UV light have shown that it can inactivate the virus. Light of 254-365 nm has been used, including simulated sunlight. Many chemical agents including bleach, hand sanitiser, hand wash, soap, ethanol, isopropanol, guandinium thiocynate/t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol, formaldehyde, povidone-iodine, 0.05% chlorhexidine, 0.1% benzalkonium chloride, acidic electrolysed water, Clyraguard copper iodine complex and hydrogen peroxide vapour have been shown to disinfect SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Heating, UV light irradiation and chemicals can be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 but there is insufficient evidence to support one measure over others in clinical practice.

Clinical features and outcomes of adults with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and pooled analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and the published literature describing the virus has grown exponentially. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify the symptoms, comorbidities present, radiological features and outcomes for adults testing positive for COVID-19 admitted to hospital. The results across multiple studies were numerically pooled to yield total estimated. RESULTS: A total of 45 studies were included in this review with 14 358 adult participants (average age 51 years, male 51%). The pooled findings suggest that the most common symptom among patients was fever (81.2%) followed by cough (62.9%), fatigue (38.0%) and anorexia/loss of appetite (33.7%). The comorbidities that were most prevalent among patients with the virus were hypertension (19.1%), cardiovascular disease (17.9%), endocrine disorder (9.3%) and diabetes (9.2%). Abnormal chest X-ray findings were present in 27.7% of patients and ground-glass opacity was demonstrated on chest computerized tomography in 63.0% of patients. The most frequent adverse outcomes were acute respiratory distress syndrome (27.4%), acute cardiac injury (16.2%) and acute kidney injury (12.6%). Death occurred in 8.2% of patients and 16.3% required intensive care admission and 11.7% had mechanical ventilation. Bacterial or secondary infections affected 8.5% of patients and 6.9% developed shock. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 most commonly presents with fever, cough, fatigue and anorexia and among patients with existing hypertension and cardiovascular disease. It is important as serious adverse outcomes can develop such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute cardiac injury, acute kidney injury and death.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in England: Insights From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI Database Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in England by analyzing procedural numbers, changes in the clinical presentation, and characteristics of patients and their clinical outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database. RESULTS: Forty-four hospitals reported PCI procedures for 126 491 patients. There were ≈700 procedures performed each week before the lockdown. After the March 23, 2020 lockdown (11th/12th week in 2020), there was a 49% fall in the number of PCI procedures after the 12th week in 2020. The decrease was greatest in PCI procedures performed for stable angina (66%), followed by non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (33%). Patients after the lockdown were younger (64.5 versus 65.5 years, P<0.001) and less likely to have diabetes (20.4% versus 24.6%, P<0.001), hypertension (52.0% versus 56.8%, P=0.001), previous myocardial infarction (23.5% versus 26.7%, P=0.008), previous PCI (24.3% versus 28.3%, P=0.001), or previous coronary artery bypass graft (4.6% versus 7.2%, P<0.001) compared with before the lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown in England has resulted in a significant decline in PCI procedures. Fewer patients underwent PCI for stable angina. This enabled greater capacity for urgent and emergency cases, and a reduced length of stay was seen for such patients. Significant changes in the characteristics of patients towards a lower risk phenotype were observed, particularly for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, reflecting a more conservative approach to this cohort.

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiac procedure activity in England and associated 30-day mortality.

AIMS: Limited data exist on the impact of COVID-19 on national changes in cardiac procedure activity, including patient characteristics and clinical outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: All major cardiac procedures (n = 374 899) performed between 1 January and 31 May for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 were analysed, stratified by procedure type and time-period (pre-COVID: January-May 2018 and 2019 and January-February 2020 and COVID: March-May 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day mortality for procedures performed in the COVID period. Overall, there was a deficit of 45 501 procedures during the COVID period compared to the monthly averages (March-May) in 2018-2019. Cardiac catheterization and device implantations were the most affected in terms of numbers (n = 19 637 and n = 10 453), whereas surgical procedures such as mitral valve replacement, other valve replacement/repair, atrioseptal defect/ventriculoseptal defect repair, and coronary artery bypass grafting were the most affected as a relative percentage difference (Δ) to previous years' averages. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was the least affected (Δ -10.6%). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID time-periods for all cardiac procedures except cardiac catheterization [OR 1.25 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.47, P = 0.006] and cardiac device implantation (OR 1.35 95% CI 1.15-1.58, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cardiac procedural activity has significantly declined across England during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a deficit in excess of 45 000 procedures, without an increase in risk of mortality for most cardiac procedures performed during the pandemic. Major restructuring of cardiac services is necessary to deal with this deficit, which would inevitably impact long-term morbidity and mortality.

Place and causes of acute cardiovascular mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the place and causes of acute cardiovascular death during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of adult (age ≥18 years) acute cardiovascular deaths (n=5 87 225) in England and Wales, from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2020. The exposure was the COVID-19 pandemic (from onset of the first COVID-19 death in England, 2 March 2020). The main outcome was acute cardiovascular events directly contributing to death. RESULTS: After 2 March 2020, there were 28 969 acute cardiovascular deaths of which 5.1% related to COVID-19, and an excess acute cardiovascular mortality of 2085 (+8%). Deaths in the community accounted for nearly half of all deaths during this period. Death at home had the greatest excess acute cardiovascular deaths (2279, +35%), followed by deaths at care homes and hospices (1095, +32%) and in hospital (50, +0%). The most frequent cause of acute cardiovascular death during this period was stroke (10 318, 35.6%), followed by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (7 098, 24.5%), heart failure (6 770, 23.4%), pulmonary embolism (2 689, 9.3%) and cardiac arrest (1 328, 4.6%). The greatest cause of excess cardiovascular death in care homes and hospices was stroke (715, +39%), compared with ACS (768, +41%) at home and cardiogenic shock (55, +15%) in hospital. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an inflation in acute cardiovascular deaths, nearly half of which occurred in the community and most did not relate to COVID-19 infection suggesting there were delays to seeking help or likely the result of undiagnosed COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to identify any changes in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in England by analysing procedural numbers, clinical characteristics and patient outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PCI in England between January 2017 and April 2020 in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society-National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research database. Analysis was restricted to 44 hospitals that reported contemporaneous activity on PCI. Only patients with primary PCI for STEMI were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34 127 patients with STEMI (primary PCI 33 938, facilitated PCI 108, rescue PCI 81) were included in the study. There was a decline in the number of procedures by 43% (n=497) in April 2020 compared with the average monthly procedures between 2017 and 2019 (n=865). For all patients, the median time from symptom to hospital showed increased after the lockdown (150 (99-270) vs 135 (89-250) min, p=0.004) and a longer door-to-balloon time after the lockdown (48 (21-112) vs 37 (16-94) min, p<0.001). The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.8% before the lockdown and 3.5% after the lockdown (p=0.12). Following adjustment for baseline characteristics, no differences were observed for in-hospital death (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.68, p=0.67) and major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32, p=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Following the lockdown in England, we observed a decline in primary PCI procedures for STEMI and increases in overall symptom-to-hospital and door-to-balloon time for patients with STEMI. Restructuring health services during COVID-19 has not adversely influenced in-hospital outcomes.