Protecting healthcare personnel and patients over 3 years of COVID-19 : Effective protection by masks and hygiene: What else was effective?

Healthcare professionals, particularly those in test centers, laboratories, or specialized COVID-19 wards, are in danger of becoming infected. Patients with special underlying health conditions are at an increased risk of getting very sick, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19. Age is a leading risk factor in this context. Currently, FFP2 (Filtering Facepiece 2, European standard), N95 (US standard), and KN95 (Chinese standard) face masks remain the simplest measure of protection. Coronavirus warning apps installed on smartphones have been recommended for anonymous contact tracing and quickly disrupting chains of infection. Preventive testing two to three times per week for healthcare personnel, on the day of hospital admission for patients, and upon facility entry for visitors has been routinely performed or has been requested from external test centers in most medical institutions. However, vaccination is regarded the most effective protective measure against COVID-19. The general recommendation of the World Health Organization is that countries continue to work toward vaccinating at least 70% of their populations, prioritizing the vaccination of 100% of healthcare workers and 100% of the most vulnerable groups, including people who are over 60 years of age and those who are immunocompromised or have underlying health conditions. The most vulnerable individuals among patients and healthcare workers should be identified and then their vaccination status should be checked and, if necessary, optimized by booster administration. In Germany, seasonal and institutional recommendations for individual protection by face masks, for hygiene measures, and for preventive testing must follow the updated coronavirus protection regulations (Coronavirus-Schutzverordnungen).

[2 years COVID-19 pandemic-What have we learned?] / 2 Jahre COVID-19-Pandemie ­ was haben wir gelernt?

After 2 years and 5 waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Germany and experience with superspreader events worldwide, we know that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly mutating virus with changing clinical phenotypes. Besides infections of the respiratory tract, which in severe cases are accompanied by pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation, the involvement of the heart with myocarditis and pericarditis as well as the kidneys have short-term and also long-term consequences. We have learnt to deal with myocarditis and pericarditis in acute infections and after vaccinations, which in rare cases can also lead to myocarditis and pericarditis. Myocarditis with myocytolysis in autopsy specimens or endomyocardial biopsy specimens is rare. In contrast, elevated troponin levels and suspicious cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings are much more frequent. The best preventive measure is a complete double basic vaccination and booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine. For patients and medical personnel precise information is given with respect to personal protective equipment and behavior (distancing-hygiene-mask-airing rule).

[Diagnosis and treatment of cardiac amyloidosis : A position statement of the ESC working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases 2021]. / Diagnose und Behandlung der kardialen Amyloidose : Positionspapier der ESC Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases 2021.

Cardiac amyloidosis is still considered a rare disease, although recent data show that it is the cause of cardiac dysfunction more frequently than expected. The diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis is based on the detection of extracellular deposits of misfolded proteins in the myocardium. This detection can be made invasively or noninvasively and is based on a tentative diagnosis that forms the foundation for further diagnostic measures. As different forms of amyloidosis may have different clinical presentations, suspicion of amyloidosis is often difficult. As not only the diagnostic possibilities have become broader but also new therapeutic possibilities have been tested in clinical studies, the working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has set up a working group of experts to compile the current data on the clinical presentation, diagnostics and treatment of patients with cardiac amyloidosis, in order to subsequently develop diagnostic criteria and treatment options for patients with different forms of cardiac amyloidosis by consensus. The aim was to formulate a uniform Europe-wide acceptable concept for essential diagnostics and treatment for this group of patients. Only this will create the foundation for national and international registers and double-blind randomized treatment studies.

[Policy paper nuclear cardiology - update 2018 - Current status of clinical practice]. / Positionspapier Nuklearkardiologie ­ Update 2018.

The joint position paper of the working community "Cardiovascular Nuclear Medicine" of the German Society of Nuclear Medicine (DGN) and the working group "Nuclear Cardiology Diagnostics" of the German Cardiac Society (DKG) updates the former 2009 paper. It is the purpose of this paper to provide an overview about the application fields, the state-of-the-art and the current value of nuclear cardiology imaging. The topics covered are chronic coronary artery disease, including viability imaging, furthermore cardiomyopathies, infective endocarditis, cardiac sarcoidosis and amyloidosis.

[Myokard-Perfusions-SPECT. Myocardial perfusion SPECT - Update S1 guideline]. / Myokard-Perfusions-SPECT. Update S1-Leitlinie1.

The S1 guideline for myocardial perfusion SPECT has been published by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) and is valid until 2/2022. This paper is a short summary with comments on all chapters and subchapters wich were modified and amended.

[Treatment of acute heart failure]. / Therapie der akuten Herzinsuffizienz.

Acute heart failure is a symptom complex of heterogeneous etiology. Clinically, it comprises a broad spectrum ranging from hypertensive pulmonary edema in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function up to cardiogenic shock in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function. The pathophysiology of acute heart failure is based on a mismatch between myocardial pump function and afterload. Besides causal measures, vasodilators and diuretics are the mainstay of therapy. Catecholamines are indicated only when other drugs are unsuccessful. Opioids are often used in clinical practice but should be used cautiously as they are associated with a negative prognosis. Further adjunctive treatment consists of thromboembolism prophylaxis, non-invasive ventilation and in some cases mechanical circulatory support and renal replacement therapy. This article discusses the differential use of these treatment modalities.

Adiponectin in coronary heart disease and newly diagnosed impaired glucose tolerance.

OBJECTIVE: Adiponectin is produced by adipose tissue and regarded as protective hormone for diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD). Its role in heart failure is discussed controversially. METHODS: In this study, 1015 consecutive patients admitted for acute (n = 149) or elective (n = 866) coronary angiography were enrolled. Patients with known diabetes mellitus (DM) were excluded. All patients were classified by oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and by the results of coronary angiography as no/minor coronary heart disease (CHD), single-vessel disease (1-VD), double-vessel disease (2-VD) or triple-vessel disease (3-VD), by New York Heart Association (NYHA) criteria and by echocardiography for heart failure. Adiponectin and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels were measured in all patients. RESULTS: Adiponectin was higher in patients with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (13.65 ± 10.31 mg/l) compared to impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (11.12 ± 7.5, p < 0.001) or diabetes (11.22 ± 7.63, p < 0.001). There was a stepwise decrease in adiponectin from no CHD (18.16 ± 12.49 mg/L) to minor CHD (16.01 ± 11.42) to 1-VD (12.18 ± 8.8, p < 0.001 to no/minor CHD) to 2- and 3-VD (10.68 ± 7.5, p < 0.001 to no/minor CHD, p = 0.004 to 1-VD). Patients with heart failure NYHA III (17.4 ± 10.27) had higher adiponectin levels compared to NYHA II (12.94 ± 9.41, p < 0.001 to NYHA III) and NYHA I (10.3 ± 7.75, p < 0.001 to NYHA III/II). In this line, adiponectin levels were positively correlated to NT-proBNP levels (r = 0.303), and patients with ejection fraction (EF) < 50% had higher adiponectin levels than those with EF > 50% (14.96 ± 4.35 to 11.78 ± 3.71, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Adiponectin levels are inversely correlated to progressing CHD and glucose intolerance but positively correlated to increasing heart failure.

[Non-invasive diagnostics of chronic stable coronary artery disease: evidence-based and non-evidence-based diagnostic algorithms]. / Nichtinvasive Diagnostik der chronisch stabilen koronaren Herzkrankheit: evidenzbasierte und nicht evidenzbasierte diagnostische Algorithmen.

In Germany, every second left heart catheterization has no immediate interventional or surgical consequence. One main reason for this limited quality of indication of many left heart catheterizations is presumably the inaccuracy of preinvasive testing that is mainly based on clinical evaluation and exercise ECG in Germany. However, exercise electrocardiography has several limitations. The central issues are the inability to exercise in many, especially elderly patients, and the missing interpretability of the stress ECG in cases with already pathological rest ECG. In 2006, the "Nationale Versorgungsleitlinie Chronische KHK (NVL KHK)" was published in Germany, adopting for the first time the evidence-based algorithms of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for non-invasive stress testing and complementary stress imaging. Stress imaging methods considered comparable and interchangeable are the following: stress echocardiography combined with physical or pharmacological stress testing, myocardial perfusion imaging with physical or pharmacological stress testing, dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging (DSMR), or myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Basically, no stress imaging method is definitely superior to the others, each method has its own advantages and disadvantages that should be considered and adjusted to the individual patient. Of pivotal importance of all stress imaging methods is the high negative predictive value of 99% of a normal study predicting a very low (< 1%) cumulative likelihood of cardiac death or myocardial infarction for at least the next 12 months. Hence, in most clinical circumstances, coronary angiography is not necessary during the 12 months subsequent to a normal stress imaging study. In contrast to these established and evidence-based recommendations of the "Nationale Versorgungsleitlinie Chronische KHK" mainly focusing on ischemia stress imaging, many diagnostic centers have developed their own non-evidence based algorithms. In these non-evidence based algorithms the morphology-oriented non-invasive CT coronary angiography has taken over the diagnostic part of evidence-based ischemia stress imaging. However, beyond the scientifically established prognostic value of calcium scoring, there is so far no scientific evidence showing that morphology-oriented CT coronary angiography protocols are superior to functional stress imaging. A new innovative approach of staged non-invasive diagnostics for patients with intermediate likelihood (10-90%) of coronary artery disease are the 2010 recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guiding the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Following this guidance, in patients with an estimated likelihood of CAD of 10-29% CT calcium scoring should be offered as first-line method, in patients with an estimated likelihood of CAD of 30-60% non-invasive functional imaging should be offered primarily, and in patients with an estimated likelihood of CAD of 61-90%, as in patients with an estimated likelihood of CAD of more than 90%, invasive coronary angiography should be preferred.

[Bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes mellitus]. / Bypasschirurgie versus perkutane koronare Intervention bei Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus.

At present, in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary multivessel disease no fixed general recommendation can be given in favor or to the disadvantage of surgical revascularization or in favor or to the disadvantage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In cases with an evidence-based indication for coronary revascularization because of clinical symptoms and/or proven ischemia, both therapeutic alternatives of bypass surgery or PCI are electable. The decision, which method of revascularization to prefer, must be based on close analyses of individual risk profile, individual comorbidity, and individual coronary morphology. With correct indication, both therapeutic methods are equivalent regarding the prognostically important combined endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. For PCI, however, there is a higher probability of restenosis depending on the complexity of lesion morphology, requiring more often repeat interventions or revascularizations. Before deciding in subfavor of or against a surgical or nonsurgical revascularization procedure, the complexity of the coronary artery disease should be analyzed, for example using the SYNTAX Score. In patients with SYNTAX Scores > or = 33 and no contraindications to bypass surgery, a surgical revascularization should be preferred. In the intermediate group with SYNTAX Scores between 23 und 32, the advantages and disadvantages of bypass surgery or PCI, for instance, the increased probability of restenosis with a higher necessity of repeat revascularizations after PCI, should be extensively discussed with the patient. In patients with SYNTAX Scores between 0 and 22, the nonsurgical, interventional therapy using drug-eluting stents (DES) can be recommended as an equivalent alternative to bypass surgery. In meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of large registries with PCI in patients with diabetes mellitus, clear advantages of DES in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) could be shown. Especially for patients with diabetes mellitus, there is still no clear evidence in favor of or against a special DES type or in favor of or against a special stent covering. Further sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials with hard clinical endpoints comparing bypass surgery with PCI (e.g., FREEDOM trial) and comparing different types of DES in patients with diabetes mellitus and clear PCI indications must be awaited, before further recommendations can be given.