Controlled-Level EVERolimus in Acute Coronary Syndrome (CLEVER-ACS) - A phase II, randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of inflammatory pathways during acute myocardial infarction contributes to infarct size and left ventricular (LV) remodeling. The present prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of broad-spectrum anti-inflammatory therapy with a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor to reduce infarct size. DESIGN: Controlled-Level EVERolimus in Acute Coronary Syndrome (CLEVER-ACS, clinicaltrials.gov NCT01529554) is a phase II randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled trial on the effects of a 5-day course of oral everolimus on infarct size, LV remodeling, and inflammation in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Within 5 days of successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), patients are randomly assigned to everolimus (first 3 days: 7.5 mg every day; days 4 and 5: 5.0 mg every day) or placebo, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome is the change from baseline (defined as 12 hours to 5 days after pPCI) to 30-day follow-up in myocardial infarct size as measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI). Secondary endpoints comprise corresponding changes in cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers as well as microvascular obstruction and LV volumes assessed by CMRI. Clinical events, laboratory parameters, and blood cell counts are reported as safety endpoints at 30 days. CONCLUSION: The CLEVER-ACS trial tests the hypothesis whether mTOR inhibition using everolimus at the time of an acute STEMI affects LV infarct size following successful pPCI.

Heart failure in COVID-19: the multicentre, multinational PCHF-COVICAV registry.

AIMS: We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF-COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62-81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non-HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44-2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24-4.29], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in-hospital death. In-hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in-hospital mortality.

SARS-CoV-2 leads to a small vessel endotheliitis in the heart.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 disease) can induce systemic vascular involvement contributing to morbidity and mortality. SARS-CoV-2 targets epithelial and endothelial cells through the ACE2 receptor. The anatomical involvement of the coronary tree is not explored yet. METHODS: Cardiac autopsy tissue of the entire coronary tree (main coronary arteries, epicardial arterioles/venules, epicardial capillaries) and epicardial nerves were analyzed in COVID-19 patients (n = 6). All anatomical regions were immunohistochemically tested for ACE2, TMPRSS2, CD147, CD45, CD3, CD4, CD8, CD68 and IL-6. COVID-19 negative patients with cardiovascular disease (n = 3) and influenza A (n = 6) served as controls. FINDINGS: COVID-19 positive patients showed strong ACE2 / TMPRSS2 expression in capillaries and less in arterioles/venules. The main coronary arteries were virtually devoid of ACE2 receptor and had only mild intimal inflammation. Epicardial capillaries had a prominent lympho-monocytic endotheliitis, which was less pronounced in arterioles/venules. The lymphocytic-monocytic infiltrate strongly expressed CD4, CD45, CD68. Peri/epicardial nerves had strong ACE2 expression and lympho-monocytic inflammation. COVID-19 negative patients showed minimal vascular ACE2 expression and lacked endotheliitis or inflammatory reaction. INTERPRETATION: ACE2 / TMPRSS2 expression and lymphomonocytic inflammation in COVID-19 disease increases crescentically towards the small vessels suggesting that COVID-19-induced endotheliitis is a small vessel vasculitis not involving the main coronaries. The inflammatory neuropathy of epicardial nerves in COVID-19 disease provides further evidence of an angio- and neurotrophic affinity of SARS-COV2 and might potentially contribute to the understanding of the high prevalence of cardiac complications such as myocardial injury and arrhythmias in COVID-19. FUNDING: No external funding was necessary for this study.

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). FINDINGS: 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. INTERPRETATION: We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. FUNDING: William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Ferric carboxymaltose for iron deficiency at discharge after acute heart failure: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the effect of ferric carboxymaltose, compared with placebo, on outcomes in patients who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure. METHODS: AFFIRM-AHF was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial done at 121 sites in Europe, South America, and Singapore. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were hospitalised for acute heart failure with concomitant iron deficiency (defined as ferritin <100 µg/L, or 100-299 µg/L with transferrin saturation <20%), and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%. Before hospital discharge, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo for up to 24 weeks, dosed according to the extent of iron deficiency. To maintain masking of patients and study personnel, treatments were administered in black syringes by personnel not involved in any study assessments. The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalisations for heart failure and cardiovascular death up to 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation data point. Secondary outcomes were the composite of total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular death; cardiovascular death; total heart failure hospitalisations; time to first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death; and days lost due to heart failure hospitalisations or cardiovascular death, all evaluated up to 52 weeks after randomisation. Safety was assessed in all patients for whom study treatment was started. A pre-COVID-19 sensitivity analysis on the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02937454, and has now been completed. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2017, and July 30, 2019, 1525 patients were screened, of whom 1132 patients were randomly assigned to study groups. Study treatment was started in 1110 patients, and 1108 (558 in the carboxymaltose group and 550 in the placebo group) had at least one post-randomisation value. 293 primary events (57·2 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 372 (72·5 per 100 patient-years) occurred in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·62-1·01, p=0·059). 370 total cardiovascular hospitalisations and cardiovascular deaths occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 451 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·80, 95% CI 0·64-1·00, p=0·050). There was no difference in cardiovascular death between the two groups (77 [14%] of 558 in the ferric carboxymaltose group vs 78 [14%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96, 95% CI 0·70-1·32, p=0·81). 217 total heart failure hospitalisations occurred in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 294 occurred in the placebo group (RR 0·74; 95% CI 0·58-0·94, p=0·013). The composite of first heart failure hospitalisation or cardiovascular death occurred in 181 (32%) patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 209 (38%) in the placebo group (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·98, p=0·030). Fewer days were lost due to heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death for patients assigned to ferric carboxymaltose compared with placebo (369 days per 100 patient-years vs 548 days per 100 patient-years; RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·47-0·97, p=0·035). Serious adverse events occurred in 250 (45%) of 559 patients in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 282 (51%) of 551 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who were stabilised after an episode of acute heart failure, treatment with ferric carboxymaltose was safe and reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalisations, with no apparent effect on the risk of cardiovascular death. FUNDING: Vifor Pharma.

Higher prevalence of pulmonary macrothrombi in SARS-CoV-2 than in influenza A: autopsy results from 'Spanish flu' 1918/1919 in Switzerland to Coronavirus disease 2019.

Similar to the influenza A pandemic in 1918/1919, the new Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally. The causes of death in COVID-19 are frequently compared to a seasonal influenza outbreak. Complete COVID-19 autopsy studies were almost non-existent in the first months of the outbreak and are still rare with respect to the number of deaths. It has been recently reported that capillary microthrombi are significantly more prevalent in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza A. To date, the contribution of macrothrombi, i.e. visible thrombi in pulmonary arteries, to the death of patients with influenza A in comparison to COVID-19 remains unaddressed. Here, we report autopsy findings in 411 patients who died from the 'Spanish' influenza A pandemic between May 1918 and April 1919 at the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. We compare these results with influenza A autopsies from 2009 to 2020, other influenza A autopsy series and all COVID-19 autopsies published to date. No descriptions of any macroscopic thromboembolic events were mentioned in influenza A autopsy reports. In 75 published COVID-19 autopsies, pulmonary artery thrombosis/embolism was reported in 36%. The direct comparison of macroscopic autopsy findings suggests a significantly greater degree of grossly visible pulmonary macrothrombi in patients with COVID-19 in comparison to influenza A autopsies even though most patients received empiric thromboprophylaxis. This is consistent with the concept of a SARS-related de novo coagulopathy with generalised in situ clot formation, which could explain the high incidence of pulmonary thrombosis/embolism with or without underlying deep vein thrombosis and in the absence of a history of venous thromboembolic events.

Endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19: Current findings and therapeutic implications.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of several non-pulmonary complications such as acute myocardial injury, renal failure or thromboembolic events. A possible unifying explanation for these phenomena may be the presence of profound endothelial dysfunction and injury. This review provides an overview on the association of endothelial dysfunction with COVID-19 and its therapeutic implications. Endothelial dysfunction is a common feature of the key comorbidities that increase risk for severe COVID-19 such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease or heart failure. Preliminary studies indicate that vascular endothelial cells can be infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and evidence of widespread endothelial injury and inflammation is found in advanced cases of COVID-19. Prior evidence has established the crucial role of endothelial cells in maintaining and regulating vascular homeostasis and blood coagulation. Aggravation of endothelial dysfunction in COVID-19 may therefore impair organ perfusion and cause a procoagulatory state resulting in both macro- and microvascular thrombotic events. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and statins are known to improve endothelial dysfunction. Data from smaller observational studies and other viral infections suggests a possible beneficial effect in COVID-19. Other treatments that are currently under investigation for COVID-19 may also act by improving endothelial dysfunction in patients. Focusing therapies on preventing and improving endothelial dysfunction could improve outcomes in COVID-19. Several clinical trials are currently underway to explore this concept.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak on Acute Admissions at the Emergency and Cardiology Departments Across Europe.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic was associated with changes in the pattern of acute cardiovascular admissions across European centers. METHODS: We set-up a multicenter, multinational, pan-European observational registry in 15 centers from 12 countries. All consecutive acute admissions to emergency departments and cardiology departments throughout a 1-month period during the COVID-19 outbreak were compared with an equivalent 1-month period in 2019. The acute admissions to cardiology departments were classified into 5 major categories: acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, and other. RESULTS: Data from 54,331 patients were collected and analyzed. Nine centers provided data on acute admissions to emergency departments comprising 50,384 patients: 20,226 in 2020 compared with 30,158 in 2019 (incidence rate ratio [IRR] with 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.66 [0.58-0.76]). The risk of death at the emergency departments was higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (odds ratio [OR] with 95% CI: 4.1 [3.0-5.8], P < 0.0001). All 15 centers provided data on acute cardiology departments admissions: 3007 patients in 2020 and 4452 in 2019; IRR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.64-0.71). In 2020, there were fewer admissions with IRR (95% CI): acute coronary syndrome: 0.68 (0.63-0.73); acute heart failure: 0.65 (0.58-0.74); arrhythmia: 0.66 (0.60-0.72); and other: 0.68(0.62-0.76). We found a relatively higher percentage of pulmonary embolism admissions in 2020: odds ratio (95% CI): 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P = 0.02. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, there were fewer admissions with unstable angina: 0.79 (0.66-0.94); non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.56 (0.50-0.64); and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 0.78 (0.68-0.89). CONCLUSION: In the European centers during the COVID-19 outbreak, there were fewer acute cardiovascular admissions. Also, fewer patients were admitted to the emergency departments with 4 times higher death risk at the emergency departments.

Management of heart failure patients with COVID-19: a joint position paper of the Chinese Heart Failure Association & National Heart Failure Committee and the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is causing considerable morbidity and mortality worldwide. Multiple reports have suggested that patients with heart failure (HF) are at a higher risk of severe disease and mortality with COVID-19. Moreover, evaluating and treating HF patients with comorbid COVID-19 represents a formidable clinical challenge as symptoms of both conditions may overlap and they may potentiate each other. Limited data exist regarding comprehensive management of HF patients with concomitant COVID-19. Since these issues pose serious new challenges for clinicians worldwide, HF specialists must develop a structured approach to the care of patients with COVID-19 and be included early in the care of these patients. Therefore, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and the Chinese Heart Failure Association & National Heart Failure Committee conducted web-based meetings to discuss these unique clinical challenges and reach a consensus opinion to help providers worldwide deliver better patient care. The main objective of this position paper is to outline the management of HF patients with concomitant COVID-19 based on the available data and personal experiences of physicians from Asia, Europe and the United States.