Predicted clinical and economic burden associated with reduction in access to acute coronary interventional care during the COVID-19 lockdown in two European countries.

AIMS: As a consequence of untimely or missed revascularization of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, many patients died at home or survived with serious sequelae, resulting in potential long-term worse prognosis and related health-economic implications.This analysis sought to predict long-term health outcomes [survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and cost of reduced treatment of STEMIs occurring during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a Markov decision-analytic model, we incorporated probability of hospitalization, timeliness of PCI, and projected long-term survival and cost (including societal costs) of mortality and morbidity, for STEMI occurring during the first UK and Spanish lockdowns, comparing them with expected pre-lockdown outcomes for an equivalent patient group.STEMI patients during the first UK lockdown were predicted to lose an average of 1.55 life-years and 1.17 QALYs compared with patients presenting with a STEMI pre-pandemic. Based on an annual STEMI incidence of 49 332 cases, the total additional lifetime costs calculated at the population level were £36.6 million (€41.3 million), mainly driven by costs of work absenteeism. Similarly in Spain, STEMI patients during the lockdown were expected to survive 2.03 years less than pre-pandemic patients, with a corresponding reduction in projected QALYs (-1.63). At the population level, reduced PCI access would lead to additional costs of €88.6 million. CONCLUSION: The effect of a 1-month lockdown on STEMI treatment led to a reduction in survival and QALYs compared to the pre-pandemic era. Moreover, in working-age patients, untimely revascularization led to adverse prognosis, affecting societal productivity and therefore considerably increasing societal costs.

Racial Disparities in Mortality Associated With Acute Myocardial Infarction and COVID-19 in the United States: A Nationwide Analysis.

This study assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on racial disparities in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) management and outcomes. We reviewed AMI patient management and outcomes in the pandemic's initial nine months, comparing COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases using 2020's National Inpatient Sample data. Our findings revealed that patients with concurrent AMI and COVID-19 had higher in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.19, 95% CI 2.63-3.88), increased mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 1.54-2.33), and higher initiation of hemodialysis (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05-1.89) compared to those without COVID-19. Moreover, Black and Asian/Pacific Islander patients had higher in-hospital mortality than White patients, (aOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.35-3.59; aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.5-8.37). Also, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander patients showed higher odds of initiating hemodialysis (aOR 5.48, 95% CI 2.13-14.1; aOR 2.99, 95% CI 1.13-7.97; aOR 7.84, 95% CI 1.55-39.5), and were less likely to receive PCI for AMI (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.74; aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.86; aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.90). Black patients also showed less likelihood of undergoing CABG (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.49-0.61). Our study highlights elevated mortality and complications in COVID-19 AMI patients, emphasizing significant racial disparities. These findings underscore the pressing need for initiatives addressing healthcare disparities, enhancing access, and promoting culturally sensitive care to boost health equity.

Cardiovascular Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the capacity of health care systems around the world, including substantial disruptions to cardiovascular care across key areas of health care delivery. In this narrative review, we examine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health care, including excess cardiovascular mortality, acute and elective cardiovascular care, and disease prevention. Additionally, we consider the long-term public health consequences of disruptions to cardiovascular care across both primary and secondary care settings. Finally, we review health care inequalities and their driving factors, as highlighted by the pandemic, and consider their importance in the context of cardiovascular health care.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management.

How the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected prevention and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is not fully understood. In this study, we used medication data as a proxy for CVD management using routinely collected, de-identified, individual-level data comprising 1.32 billion records of community-dispensed CVD medications from England, Scotland and Wales between April 2018 and July 2021. Here we describe monthly counts of prevalent and incident medications dispensed, as well as percentage changes compared to the previous year, for several CVD-related indications, focusing on hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and diabetes. We observed a decline in the dispensing of antihypertensive medications between March 2020 and July 2021, with 491,306 fewer individuals initiating treatment than expected. This decline was predicted to result in 13,662 additional CVD events, including 2,281 cases of myocardial infarction and 3,474 cases of stroke, should individuals remain untreated over their lifecourse. Incident use of lipid-lowering medications decreased by 16,744 patients per month during the first half of 2021 as compared to 2019. By contrast, incident use of medications to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, other than insulin, increased by approximately 623 patients per month for the same time period. In light of these results, methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment for CVD risk factors and remain undiagnosed are urgently required to avoid large numbers of excess future CVD events, an indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Has the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic reversed the trends in CV mortality between 1999-2019 in the United States?

AIMS: Although cardiovascular (CV) mortality increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about how these patterns varied across key subgroups, include age, sex, and race and ethnicity, as well as by specific cause of CV death. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Centers for Disease Control WONDER database was used to evaluate trends in age-adjusted CV mortality between 1999 and 2020 among US adults aged 18 and older. Overall, there was a 4.6% excess CV mortality in 2020 compared to 2019, which represents an absolute excess of 62 802 deaths. The relative CV mortality increase between 2019 and 2020 was higher for adults under 55 years of age (11.9% relative increase), versus adults aged 55-74 (7.9% increase) and adults 75 and older (2.2% increase). Hispanic adults experienced a 9.4% increase in CV mortality (7 400 excess deaths) versus 4.3% for non-Hispanic adults (56 760 excess deaths). Black adults experienced the largest % increase in CV mortality at 10.6% (15 477 excess deaths) versus 3.5% increase (42 907 excess deaths) for White adults. Among individual causes of CV mortality, there was an increase between 2019 and 2020 of 4.3% for ischemic heart disease (32 293 excess deaths), 15.9% for hypertensive disease (13 800 excess deaths), 4.9% for cerebrovascular disease (11 218 excess deaths), but a decline of 1.4% for heart failure mortality. CONCLUSION: The first year of the COVID pandemic in the United States was associated with a reversal in prior trends of improved CV mortality. Increases in CV mortality were most pronounced among Black and Hispanic adults.

Cardiovascular Health Care Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the capacity of health care systems around the world, including substantial disruptions to cardiovascular care across key areas of health care delivery. In this narrative review, we examine the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for cardiovascular health care, including excess cardiovascular mortality, acute and elective cardiovascular care, and disease prevention. Additionally, we consider the long-term public health consequences of disruptions to cardiovascular care across both primary and secondary care settings. Finally, we review health care inequalities and their driving factors, as highlighted by the pandemic, and consider their importance in the context of cardiovascular health care.

Digital health in older adults for the prevention and management of cardiovascular diseases and frailty. A clinical consensus statement from the ESC Council for Cardiology Practice/Taskforce on Geriatric Cardiology, the ESC Digital Health Committee and the ESC Working Group on e-Cardiology.

Digital health technology is receiving increasing attention in cardiology. The rise of accessibility of digital health tools including wearable technologies and smart phone applications used in medical practice has created a new era in healthcare. The coronavirus pandemic has provided a new impetus for changes in delivering medical assistance across the world. This Consensus document discusses the potential implementation of digital health technology in older adults, suggesting a practical approach to general cardiologists working in an ambulatory outpatient clinic, highlighting the potential benefit and challenges of digital health in older patients with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease. Advancing age may lead to a progressive loss of independence, to frailty, and to increasing degrees of disability. In geriatric cardiology, digital health technology may serve as an additional tool both in cardiovascular prevention and treatment that may help by (i) supporting self-caring patients with cardiovascular disease to maintain their independence and improve the management of their cardiovascular disease and (ii) improving the prevention, detection, and management of frailty and supporting collaboration with caregivers. Digital health technology has the potential to be useful for every field of cardiology, but notably in an office-based setting with frequent contact with ambulatory older adults who may be pre-frail or frail but who are still able to live at home. Cardiologists and other healthcare professionals should increase their digital health skills and learn how best to apply and integrate new technologies into daily practice and how to engage older people and their caregivers in a tailored programme of care.

Spironolactone effect on the blood pressure of patients at risk of developing heart failure: an analysis from the HOMAGE trial.

AIMS: Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) increases the risk of developing heart failure (HF). The effect of spironolactone on BP of patients at risk of developing HF is yet to be determined. To evaluate the effect of spironolactone on the BP of patients at risk for HF and whether renin can predict spironolactone's effect. METHODS AND RESULTS: HOMAGE (Heart OMics in Aging) was a prospective multicentre randomized open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial including 527 patients at risk for developing HF randomly assigned to either spironolactone (25-50 mg/day) or usual care alone for a maximum of 9 months. Sitting BP was assessed at baseline, Months 1 and 9 (or last visit). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), mixed effects models, and structural modelling equations was used. The median (percentile25-75) age was 73 (69-79) years, 26% were female, and >75% had history of hypertension. Overall, the baseline BP was 142/78 mmHg. Patients with higher BP were older, more likely to have diabetes and less likely to have coronary artery disease, had greater left ventricular mass (LVM), and left atrial volume (LAV). Compared with usual care, by last visit, spironolactone changed SBP by -10.3 (-13.0 to -7.5) mmHg and DBP by -3.2 (-4.8 to -1.7) mmHg (P < 0.001 for both). A higher proportion of patients on spironolactone had controlled BP <130/80 mmHg (36 vs. 26%; P = 0.014). Lower baseline renin levels predicted a greater response to spironolactone (interactionP = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Spironolactone had a clinically important BP-lowering effect. Spironolactone should be considered for lowering blood pressure in patients who are at risk of developing HF.

Excess years of life lost to COVID-19 and other causes of death by sex, neighbourhood deprivation, and region in England and Wales during 2020: A registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the first year of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England and Wales were unevenly distributed socioeconomically and geographically. However, the full scale of inequalities may have been underestimated to date, as most measures of excess mortality do not adequately account for varying age profiles of deaths between social groups. We measured years of life lost (YLL) attributable to the pandemic, directly or indirectly, comparing mortality across geographic and socioeconomic groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used national mortality registers in England and Wales, from 27 December 2014 until 25 December 2020, covering 3,265,937 deaths. YLLs (main outcome) were calculated using 2019 single year sex-specific life tables for England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analyses, with panel time-series models, were used to estimate expected YLL by sex, geographical region, and deprivation quintile between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020 by cause: direct deaths (COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases), cardiovascular disease and diabetes, cancer, and other indirect deaths (all other causes). Excess YLL during the pandemic period were calculated by subtracting observed from expected values. Additional analyses focused on excess deaths for region and deprivation strata, by age-group. Between 7 March 2020 and 25 December 2020, there were an estimated 763,550 (95% CI: 696,826 to 830,273) excess YLL in England and Wales, equivalent to a 15% (95% CI: 14 to 16) increase in YLL compared to the equivalent time period in 2019. There was a strong deprivation gradient in all-cause excess YLL, with rates per 100,000 population ranging from 916 (95% CI: 820 to 1,012) for the least deprived quintile to 1,645 (95% CI: 1,472 to 1,819) for the most deprived. The differences in excess YLL between deprivation quintiles were greatest in younger age groups; for all-cause deaths, a mean of 9.1 years per death (95% CI: 8.2 to 10.0) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0 to 11.6) in the most deprived; for COVID-19 and other respiratory deaths, a mean of 8.9 years per death (95% CI: 8.7 to 9.1) were lost in the least deprived quintile, compared to 11.2 (95% CI: 11.0 to 11.5) in the most deprived. For all-cause mortality, estimated deaths in the most deprived compared to the most affluent areas were much higher in younger age groups, but similar for those aged 85 or over. There was marked variability in both all-cause and direct excess YLL by region, with the highest rates in the North West. Limitations include the quasi-experimental nature of the research design and the requirement for accurate and timely recording. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed strong socioeconomic and geographical health inequalities in YLL, during the first calendar year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These were in line with long-standing existing inequalities in England and Wales, with the most deprived areas reporting the largest numbers in potential YLL.

A snapshot global survey on side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare professionals and armed forces with a focus on headache.

BACKGROUND: New messenger RNA (mRNA) and adenovirus-based vaccines (AdV) against Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered large scale clinical trials. Since healthcare professionals (HCPs) and armed forces personnel (AFP) represent a high-risk category, they act as a suitable target population to investigate vaccine-related side effects, including headache, which has emerged as a common complaint. METHODS: We investigated the side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines among HCPs and AFP through a 38 closed-question international survey. The electronic link was distributed via e-mail or via Whatsapp to more than 500 contacts. Responses to the survey questions were analyzed with bivariate tests. RESULTS: A total of 375 complete surveys have been analyzed. More than 88% received an mRNA vaccine and 11% received AdV first dose. A second dose of mRNA vaccine was administered in 76% of individuals. No severe adverse effects were reported, whereas moderate reactions and those lasting more than 1 day were more common with AdV (P=0.002 and P=0.024 respectively). Headache was commonly reported regardless of the vaccine type, but less frequently, with shorter duration and lower severity that usually experienced by participants, without significant difference irrespective of vaccine type. CONCLUSIONS: Both mRNA and AdV COVID-19 vaccines were safe and well tolerated in a real-life subset of HCPs and AFP subjects.

Ambulatory intravenous furosemide for decompensated heart failure: safe, feasible, and effective.

AIMS: This study aims to establish the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of outpatient intravenous (IV) diuretic treatment for the management of decompensated heart failure (HF) for patients enrolled in the HeartFailure@Home service. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analysed the clinical episodes of decompensated HF for patients enrolled in the HeartFailure@Home service, managed by ambulatory IV diuretic treatment either at home or on a day-case unit. A control group consisting of HF patients admitted to hospital for IV diuretics (standard-of-care) was also evaluated. In total, 203 episodes of decompensated HF (n = 154 patients) were evaluated. One hundred and fourteen episodes in 79 patients were managed exclusively by the ambulatory IV diuretic service-78 (68.4%) on a day-case unit and 36 (31.6%) domiciliary; 84.1% of patient episodes under the HF@Home service were successfully managed entirely in an out-patient setting without hospitalization. Eleven patients required admission in order to administer higher doses of IV diuretics than could be provided in the ambulatory setting. During follow-up, there were 20 (17.5%) 30 day re-admissions with HF or death in the ambulatory IV group and 29 (32.6%) in the standard-of-care arm (P = 0.02). There was no difference in 30 day HF readmissions between the two groups (14.9% ambulatory vs. 13.5% inpatients, P = 0.8), but 30 day mortality was significantly lower in the ambulatory group (3.5% vs. 21.3% inpatients, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient ambulatory management of decompensated HF with IV diuretics given either on a day case unit or in a domiciliary setting is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients with decompensated HF. This should be explored further as a model in delivering HF services in the outpatient setting during COVID-19.

Safety and Efficacy of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors in COVID-19 Population.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) among COVID-19 patients has been controversial since the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: Digital databases were queried to study the safety of RAASi in COVID-19. The primary outcome of interest was mortality. The secondary outcome was seropositivity improvement/viral clearance, clinical manifestation progression, and progression to intensive care units. A random-effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: A total of 49 observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 83,269 COVID-19 patients (RAASi n = 34,691; non-RAASi n = 48,578). The mean age of the sample was 64, and 56% were males. We found that RAASi was associated with similar mortality outcomes as compared to non-RAASi groups (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15; p > 0.05). RAASi was associated with seropositivity improvement including negative RT-PCR or antibodies, (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.99; p < 0.05). There was no association between RAASi versus control with progression to ICU admission (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79-1.23; p > 0.05) or higher odds of worsening of clinical manifestations (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11; p > 0.05). Metaregression analysis did not change our outcomes for effect modifiers including age, sex, comorbidities, RAASi type, or study type on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 is not a contraindication to hold or discontinue RAASi as they are not associated with higher mortality or worsening symptoms. Continuation of RAASi might be associated with favorable outcomes in COVID-19, including seropositivity/viral clearance.

Excess deaths from COVID-19 and other causes by region, neighbourhood deprivation level and place of death during the first 30 weeks of the pandemic in England and Wales: A retrospective registry study.

BACKGROUND: Excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with those expected from historical trends have been unequally distributed, both geographically and socioeconomically. Not all excess deaths have been directly related to COVID-19 infection. We investigated geographical and socioeconomic patterns in excess deaths for major groups of underlying causes during the pandemic. METHODS: Weekly mortality data from 27/12/2014 to 2/10/2020 for England and Wales were obtained from the Office of National Statistics. Negative binomial regressions were used to model death counts based on pre-pandemic trends for deaths caused directly by COVID-19 (and other respiratory causes) and those caused indirectly by it (cardiovascular disease or diabetes, cancers, and all other indirect causes) over the first 30 weeks of the pandemic (7/3/2020-2/10/2020). FINDINGS: There were 62,321 (95% CI: 58,849 to 65,793) excess deaths in England and Wales in the first 30 weeks of the pandemic. Of these, 46,221 (95% CI: 45,439 to 47,003) were attributable to respiratory causes, including COVID-19, and 16,100 (95% CI: 13,410 to 18,790) to other causes. Rates of all-cause excess mortality ranged from 78 per 100,000 in the South West of England and in Wales to 130 per 100,000 in the West Midlands; and from 93 per 100,000 in the most affluent fifth of areas to 124 per 100,000 in the most deprived. The most deprived areas had the highest rates of death attributable to COVID-19 and other indirect deaths, but there was no socioeconomic gradient for excess deaths from cardiovascular disease/diabetes and cancer. INTERPRETATION: During the first 30 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic there was significant geographic and socioeconomic variation in excess deaths for respiratory causes, but not for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Pandemic recovery plans, including vaccination programmes, should take account of individual characteristics including health, socioeconomic status and place of residence. FUNDING: None.

Substantial decline in hospital admissions for heart failure accompanied by increased community mortality during COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: We hypothesized that a decline in admissions with heart failure during COVID-19 pandemic would lead to a reciprocal rise in mortality for patients with heart failure in the community. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used National Heart Failure Audit data to identify 36 974 adults who had a hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of heart failure between February and May in either 2018, 2019, or 2020. Hospital admissions for heart failure in 2018/19 averaged 160/day but were much lower in 2020, reaching a nadir of 64/day on 27 March 2020 [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.42]. The proportion discharged on guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies was similar in 2018/19 compared to the same period in 2020. Between 1 February-2020 and 31 May 2020, there was a 29% decrease in hospital deaths related to heart failure (IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.67-0.75; estimated decline of 448 deaths), a 31% increase in heart failure deaths at home (IRR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.24-1.39; estimated excess 539), and a 28% increase in heart failure deaths in care homes and hospices (IRR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18-1.40; estimated excess 189). All-cause, inpatient death was similar in the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods [odds ratio (OR): 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94-1.10]. After hospital discharge, 30-day mortality was higher in 2020 compared to 2018/19 (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.38-1.78). CONCLUSION: Compared with the rolling daily average in 2018/19, there was a substantial decline in admissions for heart failure but an increase in deaths from heart failure in the community. Despite similar rates of prescription of guideline-recommended therapy, mortality 30 days from discharge was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Indirect Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Activity and Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis in England.

[Figure: see text].

Revascularisation strategies in patients with significant left main coronary disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on left main (LM) coronary revascularisation activity, choice of revascularisation strategy, and post-procedural outcomes. METHODS: All patients with LM disease (≥50% stenosis) undergoing coronary revascularisation in England between January 1, 2017 and August 19, 2020 were included (n = 22,235), stratified by time-period (pre-COVID: 01/01/2017-29/2/2020; COVID: 1/3/2020-19/8/2020) and revascularisation strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Logistic regression models were performed to examine odds ratio (OR) of 1) receipt of CABG (vs. PCI) and 2) in-hospital and 30-day postprocedural mortality, in the COVID-19 period (vs. pre-COVID). RESULTS: There was a decline of 1,354 LM revascularisation procedures between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 compared with previous years' (2017-2019) averages (-48.8%). An increased utilization of PCI over CABG was observed in the COVID period (receipt of CABG vs. PCI: OR 0.46 [0.39, 0.53] compared with 2017), consistent across all age groups. No difference in adjusted in-hospital or 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID periods for both PCI (odds ratio (OR): 0.72 [0.51. 1.02] and 0.83 [0.62, 1.11], respectively) and CABG (OR 0.98 [0.45, 2.14] and 1.51 [0.77, 2.98], respectively) groups. CONCLUSION: LM revascularisation activity has significantly declined during the COVID period, with a shift towards PCI as the preferred strategy. Postprocedural mortality within each revascularisation group was similar in the pre-COVID and COVID periods, reflecting maintenance in quality of outcomes during the pandemic. Future measures are required to safely restore LM revascularisation activity to pre-COVID levels.