Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Intermediate-High-risk Pulmonary Embolism: The CANARY Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal treatment of intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown. Objective: To assess the effect of conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (cCDT) plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation monotherapy in improving echocardiographic measures of right ventricle (RV) to left ventricle (LV) ratio in acute intermediate-high-risk PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism (CANARY) trial was an open-label, randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE, conducted in 2 large cardiovascular centers in Tehran, Iran, between December 22, 2018, through February 2, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to cCDT (alteplase, 0.5 mg/catheter/h for 24 hours) plus heparin vs anticoagulation monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with a 3-month echocardiographic RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9, assessed by a core laboratory, was the primary outcome. The proportion of patients with an RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization and the 3-month all-cause mortality were among secondary outcomes. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) was the main safety outcome. A clinical events committee, masked to the treatment assignment, adjudicated clinical outcomes. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 94 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [2.5] years; 27 women [29%]), of whom 85 patients completed the 3-month echocardiographic follow-up. Overall, 2 of 46 patients (4.3%) in the cCDT group and 5 of 39 patients (12.8%) in the anticoagulation monotherapy group met the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.69; P = .24). The median (IQR) 3-month RV/LV ratio was significantly lower with cCDT (0.7 [0.6-0.7]) than with anticoagulation (0.8 [0.7-0.9); P = .01). An RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization was observed in fewer patients treated with cCDT (13 of 48 [27.0%]) than anticoagulation (24 of 46 [52.1%]; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .01). Fewer patients assigned to cCDT experienced a 3-month composite of death or RV/LV greater than 0.9 (2 of 48 [4.3%] vs 8 of 46 [17.3%]; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03; P = .048). One case of nonfatal major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the cCDT group. Conclusions and Relevance: This prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE was hypothesis-generating for improvement in some efficacy outcomes and acceptable rate of major bleeding for cCDT compared with anticoagulation monotherapy and provided support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172115.

Impact of COVID-19 on emergency department attendance in an Australia hospital: a parallel convergent mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way people are accessing healthcare. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on emergency department (ED) attendance for frequent attenders and to explore potential reasons for changes in attendance. DESIGN: This convergent parallel mixed methods study comprised two parts. SETTING: An interrupted time-series analysis evaluated changes in ED presentation rates; interviews investigated reasons for changes for frequent ED users in a culturally and linguistically diverse setting. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4868 patients were included in the time series. A subgroup of 200 patients were interviewed, mean age 66 years (range 23-99). RESULTS: Interrupted time-series analysis from 4868 eligible participants showed an instantaneous decrease in weekly ED presentations by 36% (p<0.001), with reduction between 45% and 67% across emergency triage categories. 32% did not know they could leave home to seek care with differences seen in English versus non-English speakers (p<0.001). 35% reported postponing medical care. There was a high fear about the health system becoming overloaded (mean 4.2 (±2) on 6-point scale). Four key themes emerged influencing health-seeking behaviour: fear and/or avoidance of hospital care; use of telehealth for remote assessment; no fear or avoidance of hospital care; not leaving the house for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated reduced ED use by a vulnerable population of previously frequent attenders. COVID-19 has resulted in some fear and avoidance of hospitals, but has also offered new opportunity for alternative care through telehealth.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Catheterization Laboratory Survey.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is expected to affect operations and lifestyles of interventional cardiologists around the world in unprecedented ways. Timely gathering of information on this topic can provide valuable insight and improve the handling of the ongoing and future pandemic outbreaks. Methods and Results A survey instrument developed by the authors was disseminated via e-mail, text messaging, WhatsApp, and social media to interventional cardiologists between April 6, 2020, and April 11, 2020. A total of 509 responses were collected from 18 countries, mainly from the United States (51%) and Italy (36%). Operators reported significant decline in coronary, structural heart, and endovascular procedure volumes. Personal protective equipment was available to 95% of respondents; however FIT-tested N95 or equivalent masks were available to only 70%, and 74% indicated absence of coronavirus disease 2019 pretesting. Most (83%) operators expressed concern when asked to perform cardiac catheterization on a suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patient, primarily because of fear of viral transmission (88%). Although the survey demonstrated significant compliance with social distancing, high use of telemedicine (69%), and online education platforms (80%), there was concern over impending financial loss. Conclusions Our survey indicates significant reduction in invasive procedure volumes and concern for viral transmission. There is near universal adoption of personal protective equipment; however, coronavirus disease 2019 pretesting and access to FIT-tested N95 masks is suboptimal. Although there is concern over impending financial loss, substantial engagement in telemedicine and online education is reported.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ST-elevation myocardial infarction in a non-COVID-19 epicenter.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to study the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation delay, severity, patterns of care, and reasons for delay among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a non-hot-spot region. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reduced the activations for STEMI in epicenters like Spain. METHODS: From January 1, 2020, to April 15, 2020, 143 STEMIs were identified across our integrated 18-hospital system. Pre- and post-COVID-19 cohorts were based on March 23rd, 2020, whenstay-at-home orders were initiated in Ohio. We used presenting heart rate, blood pressure, troponin, new Q-wave, and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) to assess severity. Duration of intensive care unit stay, total length of stay, door-to-balloon (D2B) time, and radial versus femoral access were used to assess patterns of care. RESULTS: Post-COVID-19 presentation was associated with a lower admission LVEF (45 vs. 50%, p = .015), new Q-wave, and higher initial troponin; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Among post-COVID-19 patients, those with >12-hr delay in presentation 31(%) had a longer average D2B time (88 vs. 53 min, p = .033) and higher peak troponin (58 vs. 8.5 ng/ml, p = .03). Of these, 27% avoided the hospital due to fear of COVID-19, 18% believed symptoms were COVID-19 related, and 9% did not want to burden the hospital during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has remarkably affected STEMI presentation and care. Patients' fear and confusion about symptoms are integral parts of this emerging public health crisis.