An exploration of the early discharge approach for low-risk STEMI patients following primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Recently, there has been growing interest in the early discharge strategy for low-risk patients who have undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). So far findings have suggested there are multiple advantages of shorter hospital stays, including that it could be a safe way to be more cost- and resource-efficient, reduce cases of hospital-acquired infection and boost patient satisfaction. However, there are remaining concerns surrounding safety, patient education, adequate follow-up and the generalisability of the findings from current studies which are mostly small-scale. By assessing the current research, we describe the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of early hospital discharge for STEMI and discuss the factors that determine if a patient can be considered low risk. If it is feasible to safely employ a strategy like this, the implications for healthcare systems worldwide could be extremely beneficial, particularly in lower-income economies and when we consider the detrimental impacts of the recent COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare systems.

Early Hospital Discharge Following PCI for Patients With STEMI.

BACKGROUND: Regional heart attack services have improved clinical outcomes following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by facilitating early reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early discharge after primary PCI is welcomed by patients and increases efficiency of health care. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of a novel early hospital discharge pathway for low-risk STEMI patients. METHODS: Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients who were deemed at low risk for early major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were selected for inclusion in the pathway and were successfully discharged in <48 hours. Patients were reviewed by a structured telephone follow-up at 48 hours after discharge by a cardiac rehabilitation nurse and underwent a virtual follow-up at 2, 6, and 8 weeks and at 3 months. RESULTS: The median length of hospital stay was 24.6 hours (interquartile range [IQR]: 22.7-30.0 hours) (prepathway median: 65.9 hours [IQR: 48.1-120.2 hours]). After discharge, all patients were contacted, with none lost to follow-up. During median follow-up of 271 days (IQR: 88-318 days), there were 2 deaths (0.33%), both caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (>30 days after discharge), with 0% cardiovascular mortality and MACE rates of 1.2%. This finding compared favorably with a historical group of 700 patients meeting pathway criteria who remained in the hospital for >48 hours (>48-hour control group) (mortality, 0.7%; MACE, 1.9%) both in unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Selected low-risk patients can be discharged safely following successful primary PCI by using a pathway that is supported by a structured, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up schedule.

Reintroduction of elective cardiac interventions in the era of COVID-19: the Barts experience.

BACKGROUND: The response to COVID-19 has required cancellation of all but the most urgent procedures; there is therefore a need for the reintroduction of a safe elective pathway. METHODS: This was a study of a pilot pathway performed at Barts Heart Centre for the admission of patients requiring elective coronary and structural procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (April-June 2020). All patients on coronary and structural waiting lists were screened for procedural indications, urgency and adverse features for COVID-19 prognosis and discussed at dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Dedicated admission pathways involving preadmission isolation, additional consent, COVID-19 PCR testing and dedicated clean areas were used. RESULTS: 143 patients (101 coronary and 42 structural) underwent procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter aortic valve intervention and MitralClip) during the study period. The average age was 68.2; 74% were male; and over 93% had one or more moderate COVID-19 risk factors. All patients were COVID-19 PCR negative on admission with (8.1%) COVID-19 antibody positive (swab negative). All procedures were performed successfully with low rates of procedural complications (9.8%). At 2-week follow-up, no patients had symptoms or confirmed COVID-19 infection with significant improvements in quality if life and symptoms. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that patients undergoing coronary and structural procedures can be safely admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no patients contracting COVID-19 during their admission. Reassuringly, patients reflective of typical practice, that is, those at moderate or higher risk, were treated successfully. This pilot provides important information applicable to other settings, specialties and areas to reintroduce services safely.

COVID-19 and changes in activity and treatment of ST elevation MI from a UK cardiac centre.

BACKGROUND: The international healthcare response to COVID-19 has been driven by epidemiological data related to case numbers and case fatality rate. Second order effects have been less well studied. This study aimed to characterise the changes in emergency activity of a high-volume cardiac catheterisation centre and to cautiously model any excess indirect morbidity and mortality. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome fulfilling criteria for the heart attack centre (HAC) pathway at St. Bartholomew's hospital, UK. Electronic data were collected for the study period March 16th - May 16th 2020 inclusive and stored on a dedicated research server. Standard governance procedures were observed in line with the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society audit. RESULTS: There was a 28% fall in the number of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the study period (111 vs. 154) and 36% fewer activations of the HAC pathway (312 vs. 485), compared to the same time period averaged across three preceding years. In the context of 'missing STEMIs', the excess harm attributable to COVID-19 could result in an absolute increase of 1.3% in mortality, 1.9% in nonfatal MI and 4.5% in recurrent ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: The emergency activity of a high-volume PCI centre was significantly reduced for STEMI during the peak of the first wave of COVID-19. Our data can be used as an exemplar to help future modelling within cardiovascular workstreams to refine aggregate estimates of the impact of COVID-19 and inform targeted policy action.