[Changes in cardiac implantable electronic device follow-up induced by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: report of a single-centre experience]. / Variazioni del follow-up dei dispositivi elettronici cardiaci impiantabili indotte dalla pandemia COVID-19 nel 2020: esperienza di un singolo centro.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has greatly modified outpatient follow-ups. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the organizational modalities and clinical effects of rearrangements of pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) outpatient visits performed in our centers at Ravenna and Lugo Hospitals, Italy, during the pandemic outbreak in 2020. METHODS: All scheduled in-person device follow-up visits in March-December 2020 have been considered. On the basis of documented past functioning of each device and of remote monitoring (RM) capabilities, in-person visits were either performed or postponed at variable times. The characteristics of the follow-ups and the device-related clinically relevant events were analyzed, the latter being further divided into serious malfunction and problems to be corrected by device reprogramming. RESULTS: Overall, 27% of in-person visits were postponed (n = 576) (36% of ICDs and 25% of PMs), peaking 62% in March-May 2020. RM compensated nearly all hold-ups in ICDs and just 63% of postponements in PMs. The postponement-caused delay between in-person visits was 5.6 ± 1.1 months for ICDs and 4.7 ± 1.2 months for PMs; in 24% of ICDs the time interval between in-person visits was ≥18 months. Clinically relevant events were 56 (18 [4.4%] in ICDs, 38 [2.1%] in PMs), with no deaths and 21 serious malfunctions (4 [1%] in ICDs, 15 [0.8%] in PMs). RM identified all ICD malfunctions, while it was not available in the affected PMs. In comparison with the year 2019, serious malfunctions increased, though the difference was not significant. Monthly RM transmissions increased by 2.3 fold. CONCLUSIONS: In our single-center experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous in-person PM/ICD follow-up visits were postponed, and delays were well beyond the previously recommended time limits. However, device-related malfunctions did not increase, notably, when RM capabilities were used.

Pre- and in-hospital anticoagulation therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a propensity-matched analysis of in-hospital outcomes.

AIMS: To estimate if chronic anticoagulant (CAC) treatment is associated with morbidity and mortality outcomes of patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In this European multicentric cohort study, we included 1186 patients of whom 144 were on CAC (12.1%) with positive coronavirus disease 2019 testing between 1 February and 30 July 2020. The average treatment effect (ATE) analysis with a propensity score-matching (PSM) algorithm was used to estimate the impact of CAC on the primary outcomes defined as in-hospital death, major and minor bleeding events, cardiovascular complications (CCI), and acute kidney injury (AKI). We also investigated if different dosages of in-hospital heparin were associated with in-hospital survival. RESULTS: In unadjusted populations, primary outcomes were significantly higher among CAC patients compared with non-CAC patients: all-cause death (35% vs. 18% P < 0.001), major and minor bleeding (14% vs. 8% P = 0.026; 25% vs. 17% P = 0.014), CCI (27% vs. 14% P < 0.001), and AKI (42% vs. 19% P < 0.001). In ATE analysis with PSM, there was no significant association between CAC and primary outcomes except for an increased incidence of AKI (ATE +10.2%, 95% confidence interval 0.3-20.1%, P = 0.044). Conversely, in-hospital heparin, regardless of dose, was associated with a significantly higher survival compared with no anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CAC was not associated with the primary outcomes except for the increase in AKI. However, in the adjusted survival analysis, any dose of in-hospital anticoagulation was associated with significantly higher survival compared with no anticoagulation.

In- and out-of-hospital mortality for myocardial infarction during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Emilia-Romagna, Italy: A population-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has put several healthcare systems under severe pressure. The present analysis investigates how the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the myocardial infarction (MI) network of Emilia-Romagna (Italy). METHODS: Based on Emilia-Romagna mortality registry and administrative data from all the hospitals from January 2017 to June 2020, we analysed: i) temporal trend in MI hospital admissions; ii) characteristics, management, and 30-day mortality of MI patients; iii) out-of-hospital mortality for cardiac cause. FINDINGS: Admissions for MI declined on February 22, 2020 (IRR -19.5%, 95%CI from -8.4% to -29.3%, p = 0.001), and further on March 5, 2020 (IRR -21.6%, 95%CI from -9.0% to -32.5%, p = 0.001). The return to pre-COVID-19 MI-related admission levels was observed from May 13, 2020 (IRR 34.3%, 95%CI 20.0%-50.2%, p<0.001). As compared to those before the pandemic, MI patients admitted during and after the first wave were younger and with fewer risk factors. The 30-day mortality remained in line with that expected based on previous years (ratio observed/expected was 0.96, 95%CI 0.84-1.08). MI patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were few (1.5%) but showed poor prognosis (around 5-fold increase in 30-day mortality). In 2020, the number of out-of-hospital cardiac deaths was significantly higher (ratio observed/expected 1.17, 95%CI 1.08-1.27). The peak was reached in April. INTERPRETATION: In Emilia-Romagna, MI hospitalizations significantly decreased during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Management and outcomes of hospitalized MI patients remained unchanged, except for those with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A concomitant increase in the out-of-hospital cardiac mortality was observed. FUNDING: None.

Excess deaths in people with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase mortality risk from coronavirus infection (COVID-19). There are also concerns that the pandemic has affected supply and demand of acute cardiovascular care. We estimated excess mortality in specific CVDs, both 'direct', through infection, and 'indirect', through changes in healthcare. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used (i) national mortality data for England and Wales to investigate trends in non-COVID-19 and CVD excess deaths; (ii) routine data from hospitals in England (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), and China (n = 5) to assess indirect pandemic effects on referral, diagnosis, and treatment services for CVD; and (iii) population-based electronic health records from 3 862 012 individuals in England to investigate pre- and post-COVID-19 mortality for people with incident and prevalent CVD. We incorporated pre-COVID-19 risk (by age, sex, and comorbidities), estimated population COVID-19 prevalence, and estimated relative risk (RR) of mortality in those with CVD and COVID-19 compared with CVD and non-infected (RR: 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0).Mortality data suggest indirect effects on CVD will be delayed rather than contemporaneous (peak RR 1.14). CVD service activity decreased by 60-100% compared with pre-pandemic levels in eight hospitals across China, Italy, and England. In China, activity remained below pre-COVID-19 levels for 2-3 months even after easing lockdown and is still reduced in Italy and England. For total CVD (incident and prevalent), at 10% COVID-19 prevalence, we estimated direct impact of 31 205 and 62 410 excess deaths in England (RR 1.5 and 2.0, respectively), and indirect effect of 49 932 to 99 865 deaths. CONCLUSION: Supply and demand for CVD services have dramatically reduced across countries with potential for substantial, but avoidable, excess mortality during and after the pandemic.

Electrocardiographic features of 431 consecutive, critically ill COVID-19 patients: an insight into the mechanisms of cardiac involvement.

AIMS: Our aim was to describe the electrocardiographic features of critical COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We carried out a multicentric, cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of 431 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized between 10 March and 14 April 2020 who died or were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation. This project is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04367129). Standard ECG was recorded at hospital admission. ECG was abnormal in 93% of the patients. Atrial fibrillation/flutter was detected in 22% of the patients. ECG signs suggesting acute right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO) were detected in 30% of the patients. In particular, 43 (10%) patients had the S1Q3T3 pattern, 38 (9%) had incomplete right bundle branch block (RBBB), and 49 (11%) had complete RBBB. ECG signs of acute RVPO were not statistically different between patients with (n = 104) or without (n=327) invasive mechanical ventilation during ECG recording (36% vs. 28%, P = 0.10). Non-specific repolarization abnormalities and low QRS voltage in peripheral leads were present in 176 (41%) and 23 (5%), respectively. In four patients showing ST-segment elevation, acute myocardial infarction was confirmed with coronary angiography. No ST-T abnormalities suggestive of acute myocarditis were detected. In the subgroup of 110 patients where high-sensitivity troponin I was available, ECG features were not statistically different when stratified for above or below the 5 times upper reference limit value. CONCLUSIONS: The ECG is abnormal in almost all critically ill COVID-19 patients and shows a large spectrum of abnormalities, with signs of acute RVPO in 30% of the patients. Rapid and simple identification of these cases with ECG at hospital admission can facilitate classification of the patients and provide pathophysiological insights.

Questions and Answers on Practical Thrombotic Issues in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Guidance Document from the Italian Working Group on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology.

In patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the prevalence of pre-existing cardiovascular diseases is elevated. Moreover, various features, also including pro-thrombotic status, further predispose these patients to increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events. Thus, the identification of optimal antithrombotic strategies in terms of the risk-benefit ratio and outcome improvement in this setting is crucial. However, debated issues on antithrombotic therapies in patients with COVID-19 are multiple and relevant. In this article, we provide ten questions and answers on risk stratification and antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatments in patients at risk of/with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection based on the scientific evidence gathered during the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on coronary invasive procedures at two Italian high-volume referral centers.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to verify the impact on the number and characteristics of coronary invasive procedures for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) of two hub centers with cardiac catheterization facilities, during the first month of lockdown following the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Procedural data of ACS patients admitted between 10 March and 10 April 2020 were compared with those of the same period of 2019. RESULTS: We observed a 23.4% reduction in ACS admissions during 2020, with a decrease for both ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (-5.6%) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (-34.5%), albeit not statistically significant (P = 0.2). During the first 15 days of the examined periods, the reduction in ACS admissions reached 52.5% (-25% for STEMI and -70.3% for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, P = 0.04). Among STEMI patients, the rate of those with a time delay from symptoms onset longer than 180 min was significantly higher during the lockdown period (P = 0.01). Radiograph exposure (P = 0.01) was higher in STEMI patients treated in 2020 with a slightly higher amount of contrast medium (P = 0.1) and number of stents implanted (P = 0.1), whereas the number of treated vessels was reduced (P = 0.03). Percutaneous coronary intervention procedural success and in-hospital mortality were not different between the two groups and in STEMI patients (P NS for all). CONCLUSION: During the early phase, the COVID-19 outbreak was associated with a lower rate of admissions for ACS, with a substantial impact on the time delay presentation of STEMI patients, but apparently without affecting the in-hospital outcomes.

[Antithrombotic treatments in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: from current evidence to reasonable recommendations - A position paper from the Italian Working Group on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology]. / Terapie antitrombotiche in pazienti con infezione da SARS-CoV-2: dalle attuali evidenze alle ragionevoli raccomandazioni ­ Position paper del Gruppo di Studio Aterosclerosi, Trombosi e Biologia Vascolare.

Given the high prevalence of preexisting cardiovascular diseases and the increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the identification of optimal antithrombotic approaches in terms of risk/benefit ratio and outcome improvement appears crucial in this setting. In the present position paper we collected current evidence from the literature to provide practical recommendations on the management of antithrombotic therapies (antiplatelet and anticoagulant) in various clinical contexts prevalent during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: in-home management of oral anticoagulant therapy; interactions between drugs used in the SARS-CoV-2 infection and antithrombotic agents; in-hospital management of antithrombotic therapies; diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of in-hospital thrombotic complications.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on admissions for acute coronary syndrome: review of the literature and single-center experience]. / Impatto della pandemia COVID-19 sui ricoveri per sindrome coronarica acuta: revisione della letteratura ed esperienza monocentrica.

During the early phase of the lockdown following the COVID-19 pandemic, an alarm on the impact on cardiology admissions for cardiac causes, particularly in the field of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), has emerged. In order to evaluate this trend, we analyzed the literature data published since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to date, in addition to our intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU) experience. This analysis showed (i) a reduction of the overall ICCU admissions up to 50%; (ii) a 40-50% reduction of ACS admissions, greater for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) than for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); (iii) a reduction greater than 50% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary angioplasty; (iv) a higher time delay of STEMI; and (v) a higher number of ICCU admissions for non-primarily cardiac problems. In conclusion, the lockdown imposed due to the spread of COVID-19 infection has led to a change in the number and type of cardiology admissions. It seems therefore necessary that patients, especially for time-dependent diseases such as ACS, continue to refer to hospital care; that contemporary standard of care for acute cardiac disease should be guaranteed, and that intensivist cardiologists acquire specific skills for the treatment of patients with clinical conditions normally treated by other specialists.