Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 44
Filter
1.
Kidney Int ; 2022 Jun 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1945890

ABSTRACT

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of baseline mortality and severe COVID-19, but analyses across CKD stages, and comorbidities are lacking. In prevalent and incident CKD, we investigated comorbidities, baseline risk, COVID-19 incidence, and predicted versus observed one-year excess death. In a national dataset (NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment [NHSD TRE]) for England encompassing 56 million individuals), we conducted a retrospective cohort study (March 2020 to March 2021) for prevalence of comorbidities by incident and prevalent CKD, SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Baseline mortality risk, incidence and outcome of infection by comorbidities, controlling for age, sex and vaccination were assessed. Observed versus predicted one-year mortality at varying population infection rates and pandemic-related relative risks using our published model in pre-pandemic CKD cohorts (NHSD TRE and Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared. Among individuals with CKD (prevalent:1,934,585, incident:144,969), comorbidities were common (73.5% and 71.2% with one or more condition[s] in respective data sets, and 13.2% and 11.2% with three or more conditions, in prevalent and incident CKD), and associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly dialysis/transplantation (odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 2.04-2.13) and heart failure (1.73, 1.71-1.76), but not cancer (1.01, 1.01-1.04). One-year all-cause mortality varied by age, sex, multi-morbidity and CKD stage. Compared with 34,265 observed excess deaths, in the NHSD-TRE and CPRD databases respectively, we predicted 28,746 and 24,546 deaths (infection rates 10% and relative risks 3.0), and 23,754 and 20,283 deaths (observed infection rates 6.7% and relative risks 3.7). Thus, in this largest, national-level study, individuals with CKD have a high burden of comorbidities and multi-morbidity, and high risk of pre-pandemic and pandemic mortality. Hence, treatment of comorbidities, non-pharmaceutical measures, and vaccination are priorities for people with CKD and management of long-term conditions is important during and beyond the pandemic.

2.
Cardiol Clin ; 40(3): 389-396, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1944434

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Healthcare Disparities , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
3.
ESC Heart Fail ; 2022 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1929794

ABSTRACT

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.

5.
BMJ Open ; 12(6): e059309, 2022 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1902009

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To provide estimates for how different treatment pathways for the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) may affect National Health Service (NHS) England waiting list duration and associated mortality. DESIGN: We constructed a mathematical model of the excess waiting list and found the closed-form analytic solution to that model. From published data, we calculated estimates for how the strategies listed under Interventions may affect the time to clear the backlog of patients waiting for treatment and the associated waiting list mortality. SETTING: The NHS in England. PARTICIPANTS: Estimated patients with AS in England. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Increasing the capacity for the treatment of severe AS, (2) converting proportions of cases from surgery to transcatheter aortic valve implantation and (3) a combination of these two. RESULTS: In a capacitated system, clearing the backlog by returning to pre-COVID-19 capacity is not possible. A conversion rate of 50% would clear the backlog within 666 (533-848) days with 1419 (597-2189) deaths while waiting during this time. A 20% capacity increase would require 535 (434-666) days, with an associated mortality of 1172 (466-1859). A combination of converting 40% cases and increasing capacity by 20% would clear the backlog within a year (343 (281-410) days) with 784 (292-1324) deaths while awaiting treatment. CONCLUSION: A strategy change to the management of severe AS is required to reduce the NHS backlog and waiting list deaths during the post-COVID-19 'recovery' period. However, plausible adaptations will still incur a substantial wait to treatment and many hundreds dying while waiting.


Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , COVID-19 , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Humans , Models, Theoretical , State Medicine , Waiting Lists
6.
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother ; 8(2): 149-156, 2022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1706743

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Spironolactone , Aged , Blood Pressure , Female , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Prospective Studies , Spironolactone/therapeutic use
7.
PLoS Med ; 19(2): e1003904, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686090

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cause of Death , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , England/epidemiology , Female , Health Status Disparities , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Life Expectancy , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Residence Characteristics , Respiratory Tract Diseases/mortality , Socioeconomic Factors , Wales/epidemiology
9.
Panminerva Med ; 63(3): 324-331, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504553

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Headache/chemically induced , Vaccination/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Headache/diagnosis , Headache/epidemiology , Health Care Surveys , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
11.
ESC Heart Fail ; 8(5): 3906-3916, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1353443

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Furosemide , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
12.
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev ; 28(4): 405-416, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1283824

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19/virology , Renin-Angiotensin System/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Aged , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Contraindications, Drug , Disease Progression , Female , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Observational Studies as Topic , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
13.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 31(2): 116-122, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280435

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is uncertain. We aimed to compare quality of AMI care in England and Wales during and before the COVID-19 pandemic using the 2020 European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care quality indicators (QIs) for AMI. METHODS: Cohort study of linked data from the AMI and the percutaneous coronary intervention registries in England and Wales between 1 January 2017 and 27 May 2020 (representing 236 743 patients from 186 hospitals). At the patient level, the likelihood of attainment for each QI compared with pre COVID-19 was calculated using logistic regression. The date of the first national lockdown in England and Wales (23 March 2020) was chosen for time series comparisons. RESULTS: There were 10 749 admissions with AMI after 23 March 2020. Compared with before the lockdown, patients admitted with AMI during the first wave had similar age (mean 68.0 vs 69.0 years), with no major differences in baseline characteristics (history of diabetes (25% vs 26%), renal failure (6.4% vs 6.9%), heart failure (5.8% vs 6.4%) and previous myocardial infarction (22.9% vs 23.7%)), and less frequently had high Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk scores (43.6% vs 48.6%). There was an improvement in attainment for 10 (62.5%) of the 16 measured QIs including a composite QI (43.8% to 45.2%, OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) during, compared with before, the lockdown. CONCLUSION: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales, quality of care for AMI as measured against international standards did not worsen, but improved modestly.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Myocardial Infarction , Aged , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control , England/epidemiology , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Wales/epidemiology
14.
Eur Heart J ; 41(46): 4376-4379, 2020 12 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276164
15.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 7: 100144, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260817

ABSTRACT

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.

16.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes ; 7(4): 378-387, 2021 07 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1246705

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Heart Failure , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cause of Death , Clinical Audit/statistics & numerical data , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Male , Mortality , Quality of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , State Medicine/standards , State Medicine/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL