Non-communicable disease, sociodemographic factors, and risk of death from infection: a UK Biobank observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have been highlighted as important risk factors for COVID-19 mortality. However, insufficient data exist on the wider context of infectious diseases in people with NCDs. We aimed to investigate the association between NCDs and the risk of death from any infection before the COVID-19 pandemic (up to Dec 31, 2019). METHODS: For this observational study, we used data from the UK Biobank observational cohort study to explore factors associated with infection death. We excluded participants if data were missing for comorbidities, body-mass index, smoking status, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation, and if they were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent. Deaths were censored up to Dec 31, 2019. We used Poisson regression models including NCDs present at recruitment to the UK Biobank (obesity [defined by use of body-mass index] and self-reported hypertension, chronic heart disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, cancer, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack, other neurological disease, psychiatric disorder, and chronic inflammatory and autoimmune rheumatological disease), age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, and socioeconomic deprivation. Separate models were constructed with individual NCDs replaced by the total number of prevalent NCDs to define associations with multimorbidity. All analyses were repeated with non-infection-related death as an alternate outcome measure to establish differential associations of infection death and non-infection death. Associations are reported as incidence rate ratios (IRR) accompanied by 95% CIs. FINDINGS: After exclusion of 9210 (1·8%) of the 502 505 participants in the UK Biobank cohort, our study sample comprised 493 295 individuals. During 5 273 731 person-years of follow-up (median 10·9 years [IQR 10·1-11·6] per participant), 27 729 deaths occurred, of which 1385 (5%) were related to infection. Advancing age, male sex, smoking, socioeconomic deprivation, and all studied NCDs were independently associated with the rate of both infection death and non-infection death. Compared with White ethnicity, a pooled Black, Asian, and minority ethnicity group was associated with a reduced risk of infection death (IRR 0·64, 95% CI 0·46-0·87) and non-infection death (0·80, 0·75-0·86). Stronger associations with infection death than with non-infection death were observed for advancing age (age 65 years vs 45 years: 7·59, 95% CI 5·92-9·73, for infection death vs 5·21, 4·97-5·48, for non-infection death), current smoking (vs never smoking: 3·69, 3·19-4·26, vs 2·52, 2·44-2·61), socioeconomic deprivation (most vs least deprived quintile: 2·13, 1·78-2·56, vs 1·38, 1·33-1·43), class 3 obesity (vs non-obese: 2·21, 1·74-2·82, vs 1·55, 1·44-1·66), hypertension (1·36, 1·22-1·53, vs 1·15, 1·12-1·18), respiratory disease (2·21, 1·96-2·50, vs 1·28, 1·24-1·32), chronic kidney disease (5·04, 4·28-7·31, vs 2·50, 2·20-2·84), psychiatric disease (1·56, 1·30-1·86, vs 1·23, 1·18-1·29), and chronic inflammatory and autoimmune rheumatological disease (2·45, 1·99-3·02, vs 1·41, 1·32-1·51). Accrual of multimorbidity was also more strongly associated with risk of infection death (five or more comorbidities vs none: 9·53, 6·97-13·03) than of non-infection death (5·26, 4·84-5·72). INTERPRETATION: Several NCDs are associated with an increased risk of infection death, suggesting that some of the reported associations with COVID-19 mortality might be non-specific. Only a subset of NCDs, together with the accrual of multimorbidity, advancing age, smoking, and socioeconomic deprivation, were associated with a greater IRR for infection death than for other causes of death. Further research is needed to define why these risk factors are more strongly associated with infection death, so that more effective preventive strategies can be targeted to high-risk groups. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic heart failure.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge. Meeting this has resulted in changes to working practices and the impact on the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is largely unknown. We performed a retrospective, observational study contrasting patients diagnosed with HFrEF attending specialist heart failure clinics at a UK hospital, whose subsequent period of optimisation of medical therapy was during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients diagnosed the previous year. The primary outcome was the change in equivalent dosing of ramipril and bisoprolol at 6-months. Secondary outcomes were the number and type of follow-up consultations, hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality. In total, 60 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF between 1 December 2019 and 30 April 2020, compared to 54 during the same period of the previous year. The absolute number of consultations was higher (390 vs 270; p = 0.69), driven by increases in telephone consultations, with a reduction in appointments with hospital nurse specialists. After 6-months, we observed lower equivalent dosing of ramipril (3.1 ± 3.0 mg vs 4.4 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.035) and similar dosing of bisoprolol (4.1 ± 0.5 mg vs 4.9 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.27), which persisted for ramipril (mean difference 1.0 mg, 95% CI 0.018-2.09; p = 0.046) and bisoprolol (mean difference 0.52 mg, 95% CI -0.23-1.28; p = 0.17) after adjustment for baseline dosing. We observed no differences in the proportion of patients who died (5.0% vs 7.4%; p = 0.59) or were hospitalised with heart failure (13.3% vs 9.3%; p = 0.49). Our study suggests the transition to telephone appointments and re-deployment of heart failure nurse specialists was associated with less successful optimisation of medical therapy, especially renin-angiotensin inhibitors, compared with usual care.

Advances in cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator therapy: Medtronic Cobalt and Crome.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices have revolutionized the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. New device generations tend to be launched every few years, with incremental improvements in performance and safety and with an expectation that these will improve patient management and outcomes while remaining cost-effective. As a result, today's cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices are quite different from the pioneering but often bulky devices of the late 20th century. This review discusses new and improved features developed to target specific needs in managing heart failure patients, some of which are especially pertinent to the current worldwide healthcare situation, with focus on the latest generation of CRTs with defibrillator (CRT-Ds) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators from Medtronic.

Lay abstract Cardiac pacemaker devices, especially those that can retune the pumping function of the heart (known as resynchronization therapy) and those that provide shocks to restore a normal heart rhythm (known as implantable defibrillators) have revolutionized the management of heart failure over the last three decades and continue to improve in terms of their safety, effectiveness and battery life. This review discusses new and improved features developed to target specific needs in managing heart failure patients, specifically focusing on the latest generation of devices from Medtronic.

Advanced care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: ceiling of care decisions and their implications for observational data.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies investigating risk factors in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not considered the confounding effects of advanced care planning, such that a valid picture of risk for elderly, frail and multi-morbid patients is unknown. We aimed to report ceiling of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decisions and their association with demographic and clinical characteristics as well as outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study conducted between 5th March and 7th May 2020 of all hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Ceiling of care and CPR decisions were documented using the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process. Unadjusted and multivariable regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with ceiling of care decisions and death during hospitalisation. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were included, of whom 409 (84·3%) had a documented ceiling of care; level one for 208 (50·9%), level two for 75 (18·3%) and level three for 126 (30·8%). CPR decisions were documented for 451 (93·0%) of whom 336 (74·5%) were 'not for resuscitation'. Advanced age, frailty, White-European ethnicity, a diagnosis of any co-morbidity and receipt of cardiovascular medications were associated with ceiling of care decisions. In a multivariable model only advanced age (odds 0·89, 0·86-0·93 p < 0·001), frailty (odds 0·48, 0·38-0·60, p < 0·001) and the cumulative number of co-morbidities (odds 0·72, 0·52-1·0, p = 0·048) were independently associated. Death during hospitalisation was independently associated with age, frailty and requirement for level two or three care. CONCLUSION: Ceiling of care decisions were made for the majority of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, broadly in line with known predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19, but with a focus on co-morbidities suggesting ICU admission might not be a reliable end-point for observational studies where advanced care planning is routine.

Dying 'due to' or 'with' COVID-19: a cause of death analysis in hospitalised patients.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is accompanied by an ever-rising death toll attributed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but questions have persisted regarding deaths formally attributed to COVID-19. We aimed to provide an independent review of clinical features of patients who died during hospitalisation with a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 and relate these to the reported cause of death. Between 23 March and 28 April 2020, a total of 162 patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR died in our NHS trust. COVID-19 infection was documented as the direct cause of death in 150 (93%). Review of the records revealed 138 (92%) patients had pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiography, and 146 (97%) required oxygen therapy. This retrospective review of cause of death has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of hospitalised patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR died as a direct consequence of COVID-19 infection.