Performing elective cardiac invasive procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak: a position statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

The rearrangement of healthcare services required to face the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a drastic reduction in elective cardiac invasive procedures. We are already facing a "second wave" of infections and we might be dealing during the next months with a "third wave" and subsequently new waves. Therefore, during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic we have to face the problems of how to perform elective cardiac invasive procedures in non-COVID patients and which patients/procedures should be prioritised. In this context, the interplay between the pandemic stage, the availability of healthcare resources and the priority of specific cardiac disorders is crucial. Clear pathways for "hot" or presumed "hot" patients and "cold" patients are mandatory in each hospital. Depending on the local testing capacity and intensity of transmission in the area, healthcare facilities may test patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection before the interventional procedure, regardless of risk assessment for COVID-19. Pre-hospital testing should always be conducted in the presence of symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 positive patients, full personal protective equipment using FFP 2/N95 masks, eye protection, gowning and gloves is indicated during cardiac interventions for healthcare workers. When patients have tested negative for COVID-19, medical masks may be sufficient. Indeed, individual patients should themselves wear medical masks during cardiac interventions and outpatient visits.

Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. METHODS: Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. RESULTS: In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because this was not a primary analysis, it should be considered hypothesis generating.

Evaluation of Guideline Adherence for Cardiac Catheterization in Patients With Presumed Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Germany (ENLIGHT-KHK) - A Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis or exclusion of obstructive stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) in clinical practice is challenging and therefore clinical guidelines provide recommendations on the use of non-invasive and invasive testing. For Germany, data obtained from the OECD and health insurances indicate a potential non-adherence to guideline-recommended diagnostic pathways. However, there is a lack of prospective and reliable evidence for appropriate use of invasive coronary angiography (CA) in Germany. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence on the nature and extent of guideline non-adherence in patients undergoing CA with presumed obstructive SCAD in Germany and, to evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of potential deviations in guideline adherence. METHODS: ENLIGHT-KHK is a multicentre, prospective observational study recruiting 1500 patients being admitted for CA with presumed obstructive SCAD and exclusion of acute myocardial infarction (DRKS00015638). The primary outcome measure is the adherence to clinical guidelines in the decision-making process for use of CA. Therefore, the patients' diagnostic pathways and adherence to German and European guidelines will be assessed using clinical data, health-claims data, and a patient questionnaire. The primary safety outcome is a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause death. Secondary outcome measures are periprocedural complications and costs. Using a decision-analytic model, the clinical and economic impact of observed guideline adherence in clinical practice will be assessed. Potential barriers and facilitators of guideline-adherent decision-making will be evaluated via semi-structured interviews. CONCLUSIONS: ENLIGHT-KHK will give insights into the appropriateness of invasive CA in Germany and enable the development of concepts to improve guideline-adherence in the German health-care setting.

Validation of the all-comers design: Results of the TARGET-AC substudy.

BACKGROUND: Results of clinical trials are often criticized by low inclusion rate and potential sampling bias in patient recruitment. The aim of this validation registry is to evaluate how far an all-comers design in the context of clinical research can ensure the representation of the true all-comers population. METHODS: This validation registry is a prospective international multicentre registry, conducted at 10 out of the total 21 centers, participating in TARGET-AC (registered under NCT02520180). During a predefined four-week period data were recorded prospectively on all PCIs performed in the participating centers, whether or not patients were enrolled in TARGET-AC. Data were collected on patient demographics, angiographic lesion- and procedural characteristics. For patients who were not enrolled in the study, operators were asked to declare the reason for not enrolling the patient, using a single-choice questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients were enrolled in the TARGET-AC study during the investigated period (ER group), standing as 20% (range 4% and 54%) of all eligible cases per protocol. In the ER group more patients presented with stable angina (61% vs. 43%, respectively; P < .001). Whereas ST-elevation infarction was less common (5% vs. 26%, respectively; P < .001), there was no difference in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (32% vs. 27%, respectively; P = .248). Risk factors and comorbidities did not show any difference between the ER and the non-enrolled (NER) groups, except for greater rate of significant valvular disease in the NER group (12% vs 19%, respectively; P = .037). The NER group presented more thrombotic stenoses than the ER group (20% vs 12%, respectively; P = .040). No difference was found in any other investigated angiographic parameters, like target vessels, bifurcation lesion, severe calcification or chronic total occlusions. Admission during regular working hours and availability of study nurse were associated with markedly higher recruitment rate. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that TARGET AC was outbalanced for stable patients over primary PCIs as compared to real world. However in terms of risk factors and comorbidities the trial managed to represent the collective of real world clinical practice. Fairly representative cases were included at an average inclusion-to-eligible rate of 20%.

Validation of the updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score for all-cause mortality in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was the external validation of the updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score for two-year all-cause mortality after PCI in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The GLOBAL LEADERS trial was an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two strategies of antiplatelet therapy in 15,991 patients undergoing PCI. As a predefined analysis, we studied the first 4,006 consecutive patients enrolled between July 2013 and April 2014 for whom the anatomic SYNTAX scores were calculated by an independent core lab. The updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score was available in 3,271 patients. Patients were divided into quintiles according to the score. The C-statistic of the updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score for two-year all-cause mortality was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.77). The updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score identified patients at very high risk for two-year all-cause mortality after PCI. Although it systematically overestimated two-year all-cause mortality, predicted and observed two-year all-cause mortality in the majority of the patients (four out of five quintiles) were in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall discrimination for two-year all-cause mortality of the updated logistic clinical SYNTAX score is either borderline acceptable or possibly helpful. Calibration in the majority of patients is appropriate. The score is potentially useful in selecting enriched high-risk populations.

[Renal artery stenosis. Pathophysiology--diagnosis--therapy]. / Die Nierenarterienstenose. Pathophysiologie--Diagnostik--Therapie.

Renal artery stenosis (RAS) is both a common and progressive disease and its prevalence in patients > 65 years is 6.8%. In patients with known or suspected atherosclerosis undergoing coronary angiography, a frequency of even 11-23% is reported in the literature. Despite this high prevalence, there is an ongoing discussion about the indications for revascularization and it is currently unclear, whether renal artery revascularization reduces adverse cardiovascular and renal events. Nevertheless, the number of interventions for RAS is rising steadily, although up to 40% of patients do not profit from this intervention. This fact underlines the necessity of a thorough diagnostic work-up before intervention, integrating morphological and functional tests. For morphological evaluation, multislice computed tomography, magnetic resonance tomography or digital subtraction angiography can be done. In experienced centers, Doppler ultrasound can serve as an excellent functional tool, to assess the physiological relevance of an RAS, but also invasive measurements of pressure and flow provide valuable information about the significance of stenoses; however, these methods will have to be assessed with respect to their value to predict long-term outcome. Although percutaneous intervention of RAS is associated with a substantially lower risk of major adverse events as compared to surgery, by using contrast media this procedure holds the risk of deterioration of renal function and of a small number of procedure-dependent complications as well. Thus, a careful consideration of pros and cons of this procedure is mandatory.