Use of cardiac imaging in chronic coronary syndromes: the EURECA Imaging registry.

BACKGROUND: The prospective, multicentre EURECA registry assessed the use of imaging and adoption of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines (GL) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). METHODS: Between May 2019 and March 2020, 5156 patients were recruited in 73 centres from 24 ESC member countries. The adoption of GL recommendations was evaluated according to clinical presentation and pre-test probability (PTP) of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 64 ± 11 years, 60% of patients were males, 42% had PTP >15%, 27% had previous CAD, and ejection fraction was <50% in 5%. Exercise ECG was performed in 32% of patients, stress imaging as the first choice in 40%, and computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) in 22%. Invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was the first or downstream test in 17% and 11%, respectively. Obstructive CAD was documented in 24% of patients, inducible ischaemia in 19%, and 13% of patients underwent revascularization. In 44% of patients, the overall diagnostic process did not adopt the GL. In these patients, referral to stress imaging (21% vs. 58%; P < 0.001) or CTCA (17% vs. 30%; P < 0.001) was less frequent, while exercise ECG (43% vs. 22%; P < 0.001) and ICA (48% vs. 15%; P < 0.001) were more frequently performed. The adoption of GL was associated with fewer ICA, higher proportion of diagnosis of obstructive CAD (60% vs. 39%, P < 0.001) and revascularization (54% vs. 37%, P < 0.001), higher quality of life, fewer additional testing, and longer times to late revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CCS, current clinical practice does not adopt GL recommendations on the use of diagnostic tests in a significant proportion of patients. When the diagnostic approach adopts GL recommendations, invasive procedures are less frequently used and the diagnostic yield and therapeutic utility are superior.

Time-related aortic inflammatory response, as assessed with 18F-FDG PET/CT, in patients hospitalized with severely or critical COVID-19: the COVAIR study.

AIM: Arterial involvement has been implicated in the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). Fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) imaging is a valuable tool for the assessment of aortic inflammation and is a predictor of outcome. We sought to prospectively assess the presence of aortic inflammation and its time-dependent trend in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Between November 2020 and May 2021, in this pilot, case-control study, we recruited 20 patients with severe or critical COVID-19 (mean age of 59 ± 12 years), while 10 age and sex-matched individuals served as the control group. Aortic inflammation was assessed by measuring 18F-FDG uptake in PET/CT performed 20-120 days post-admission. Global aortic target to background ratio (GLA-TBR) was calculated as the sum of TBRs of ascending and descending aorta, aortic arch, and abdominal aorta divided by 4. Index aortic segment TBR (IAS-TBR) was designated as the aortic segment with the highest TBR. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in aortic 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake between patients and controls (GLA-TBR: 1.46 [1.40-1.57] vs. 1.43 [1.32-1.70], respectively, P = 0.422 and IAS-TBR: 1.60 [1.50-1.67] vs. 1.50 [1.42-1.61], respectively, P = 0.155). There was a moderate correlation between aortic TBR values (both GLA and IAS) and time distance from admission to 18F-FDG PET-CT scan (Spearman's rho = - 0.528, P = 0.017 and Spearman's rho = - 0.480, p = 0.032, respectively). Patients who were scanned less than or equal to 60 days from admission (n = 11) had significantly higher GLA-TBR values compared to patients that were examined more than 60 days post-admission (GLA-TBR: 1.53 [1.42-1.60] vs. 1.40 [1.33-1.45], respectively, P = 0.016 and IAS-TBR: 1.64 [1.51-1.74] vs. 1.52 [1.46-1.60], respectively, P = 0.038). There was a significant difference in IAS- TBR between patients scanned ≤ 60 days and controls (1.64 [1.51-1.74] vs. 1.50 [1.41-1.61], P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: This is the first study suggesting that aortic inflammation, as assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging, is increased in the early post COVID phase in patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and largely resolves over time. Our findings may have important implications for the understanding of the course of the disease and for improving our preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Nuclear Cardiology practice in COVID-19 era

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the biggest shock in decades to the well developed healthcare system and resources worldwide. Although there was a wide variation in the level of preparedness, the transition was tough even for the most renowned healthcare systems. Increasing the capacity and adapting healthcare for the needs of COVID-19 patients is described by the WHO as a fundamental outbreak response measure. However, while the system is preoccupied with a pandemic infection, patients suffering from other illnesses are in high risk to get infected, also being compromised by the imperative shift in medical resources and significant restrictions on routine medical care. For example patients with cardiovascular disease and others referred for nuclear cardiology procedures are frequently greater than 60 years of age and have other comorbidities (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease, and chronic renal disease) that place them at a high-risk for adverse outcomes with COVID-19, providing unique challenges for their management in healthcare facilities, as well as for the care of health care personnel. Numerous medical specialty societies and governmental agencies issued guidelines aiming at the specification of preventive measures and amendments in everyday clinical practice during the escalation and peak of the pandemic. In accordance, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI), issued a common statement in late March 2020, which was provided as an initial response to this pandemic, offering specific recommendations for adapting nuclear cardiology practices at each step in a patient's journey through the lab-for inpatients, outpatients and emergency department patients. One of the main recommendations was cancelling or delaying of all non-urgent nuclear cardiology studies. As COVID-19 follows a different time course in different geographic regions and lockdowns begin to lift in many countries, the issue of re-establishment of non-emergent care, in nuclear cardiology laboratories amongst others, has to be addressed in a watchful and balanced way, keeping in mind that the COVID-19 crisis is far from over. Furthermore measuring what is happening in the current crisis is essential to ensuring preparedness for a possible next wave of the pandemic. Recently the ASNC, SNMMI, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), issued an information statement which describes a careful approach to reestablishment of non-emergent care in nuclear cardiology laboratories reflecting diverse settings from the United States and worldwide. In the same spirit it is also the reintroduction guidance issued by North American Cardiovascular Societies. In this paper we provide a synopsis of the basic steps of adapting nuclear cardiology practice in the era of COVID-19 in order to balance between the risk of viral transmission while also providing crucial cardiovascular assessments for our patients.