Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes over a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. Methods: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy (INV) added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy (CON). Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as pre-specified in the trial protocol. Results: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23 % women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% diabetes, and median EF 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 non-cardiovascular deaths and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate 12.7% in INV, 13.4% in CON; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.18). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% vs. 8.6%, adjusted HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of non-cardiovascular mortality (5.6% vs. 4.4%, adjusted HR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.08-1.91) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. Conclusions: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04894877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894877.

Feasibility, efficacy and safety of exercise stress echocardiography during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, efficacy and safety of performing exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline data were collected prospectively on 740 consecutive patients (mean age 61.4 years, 56.8% males), referred for a stress echocardiogram (SE), who underwent ESE between July 2020 (immediate post lockdown) and January 2021 according to national safety guidelines, in addition to patients wearing masks during ESE. Retrospective analysis was performed on follow-up data for outcomes. Propensity score matching was used to compare workload achieved during ESE pre-COVID-19, in 768 consecutive patients who underwent ESE between May 2014 and May 2015. Of the 725 (97.9%) diagnostic tests obtained, 69 (9.3%) demonstrated significant inducible ischaemia (≥3 segments) with no serious adverse events. Of the 61 patients who underwent coronary angiography, 51 (83%) demonstrated flow-limiting coronary artery disease. During a mean follow-up period of 4.6 months, one first-cardiac event was recorded.Compliance with mask-wearing throughout ESE was seen in 98.7% of patients. Of the 17 healthcare professionals performing ESE, none contracted COVID-19 during this period. SE service performance increased to 96.8% of prepandemic levels (100%) from 26.6% at the start of July 2020 to the end of December 2020.Propensity-matched data showed no significant difference in exercise workload between patients undergoing ESE during and prepandemic. CONCLUSION: Performing ESE during the COVID-19 pandemic, with safety measures in place, is feasible, efficacious and safe. It impacted on the time patients were waiting to undergo a diagnostic test and yielded appropriate outcomes.Service evaluation authorisation of research capability numberSE20/059.

Prevalence of cardiac pathology and relation to mortality in a multiethnic population hospitalised with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cardiac abnormalities and their relationship to markers of myocardial injury and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective and prospective observational study of inpatients referred for transthoracic echocardiography for suspected cardiac pathology due to COVID-19 within a London NHS Trust. Echocardiograms were performed to assess left ventricular (LV), right ventricular (RV) and pulmonary variables along with collection of patient demographics, comorbid conditions, blood biomarkers and outcomes. RESULT: In the predominant non-white (72%) population, RV dysfunction was the primary cardiac abnormality noted in 50% of patients, with RV fractional area change <35% being the most common marker of this RV dysfunction. By comparison, LV systolic dysfunction occurred in 18% of patients. RV dysfunction was associated with LV systolic dysfunction and the presence of a D-shaped LV throughout the cardiac cycle (marker of significant pulmonary artery hypertension). LV systolic dysfunction (p=0.002, HR 3.82, 95% CI 1.624 to 8.982), pulmonary valve acceleration time (p=0.024, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.964 to 0.997)-marker of increased pulmonary vascular resistance, age (p=0.047, HR 1.027, 95% CI 1.000 to 1.055) and an episode of tachycardia measured from admission to time of echo (p=0.004, HR 6.183, 95% CI 1.772 to 21.575) were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this predominantly non-white population hospitalised with COVID-19, the most common cardiac pathology was RV dysfunction which is associated with both LV systolic dysfunction and elevated pulmonary artery pressure. The latter two, not RV dysfunction, were associated with mortality.

Contrast echocardiography facilitates appropriate management of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and suspected right ventricular masses: case series.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is associated with a coagulopathy with high incidence of venous thrombo-embolism. However, bleeding risk is also significant, causing difficulty in initiating and adjusting anticoagulation therapy in case of suspected thrombi. Cardiac masses can be challenging to be identified properly in the context of this disease. The use of bedside contrast echocardiography (CE) can be of a great value in this situation decreasing procedure-related risk and allowing proper diagnosis and management of a cardiac mass. CASES SUMMARY: We present two cases who were admitted with severe COVID-19 infection. Both cases had additional risk factors for hypercoagulability. Un-enhanced echocardiography was performed and revealed right ventricular (RV) dysfunction with a suspected RV mass. The use of bedside CE could confirm a RV thrombus in the first case and exclude it in the second case. Hence, anticoagulation therapy could be adjusted accordingly in both patients. DISCUSSION: Coronavirus disease 2019 infection is associated with peripheral thrombo-embolism and cardiac thrombi. Given the critical condition of many patients affected by COVID-19, imaging for thrombo-embolic events is often restricted. With the use of bedside CE, cardiac masses may be correctly identified, aiding proper adjustment of anticoagulation therapy.

Right ventricular dysfunction in critically ill COVID-19 ARDS.

AIMS: Comprehensive echocardiography assessment of right ventricular (RV) impairment has not been reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We detail the specific phenotype and clinical associations of RV impairment in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) measures of RV function were collected in critically unwell patients for associations with clinical, ventilatory and laboratory data. RESULTS: Ninety patients (25.6% female), mean age 52.0 ± 10.8 years, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VVECMO) (42.2%) were studied. A significantly higher proportion of patients were identified as having RV dysfunction by RV fractional area change (FAC) (72.0%,95% confidence interval (CI) 61.0-81.0) and RV velocity time integral (VTI) (86.4%, 95 CI 77.3-93.2) than by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (23.8%, 95 CI 16.0-33.9), RVS' (11.9%, 95% CI 6.6-20.5) or RV free wall strain (FWS) (35.3%, 95% CI 23.6-49.0). RV VTI correlated strongly with RV FAC (p ≤ 0.01). Multivariate regression demonstrated independent associations of RV FAC with NTpro-BNP and PVR. RV-PA coupling correlated with PVR (univariate p < 0.01), as well as RVEDAi (p < 0.01), and RVESAi (p < 0.01), and was associated with P/F ratio (p 0.026), PEEP (p 0.025), and ALT (p 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 ARDS is associated with a specific phenotype of RV radial impairment with sparing of longitudinal function. Clinicians should avoid interpretation of RV health purely on long-axis parameters in these patients. RV-PA coupling potentially provides important additional information above standard measures of RV performance in this cohort.