Instantaneous wave-free ratio for guiding treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility of a physiological coronary evaluation with the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) successfully revascularized. METHODS: A multicenter registry including patients of four high-volume PCI centers with ACS and underwent successful revascularization of the culprit vessel and had other nonculprit lesions that were physiologically evaluated with the iFR between January 2017 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, probable or definitive stent thrombosis and new revascularization (MACEs). RESULTS: A total of 356 patients with 472 nonculprit lesions were included. The mean age was 66 ± 11 years. The clinical presentation was ACS without persistent ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) in 235 patients (66%) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in 121 patients (34%). After a median follow-up period of 21 (14-30) months, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients (9%). There were no differences in outcomes regarding clinical presentation (NSTEMI vs. NSTE-ACS, 9.1 vs. 8.9%, padj  = 0.570) or iFR induced treatment strategy (patients with all lesions revascularized vs. patients with at least one lesion with an iFR > 0.89 deferred for revascularization, 10.5 vs. 8.4%, padj  = 0.476). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the iFR to guide percutaneous coronary intervention decision making in nonculprit lesions seems to be feasible, with an acceptable percentage of MACEs at the mid-term follow-up. Patients with deferred revascularization of lesions without physiological significance and patients undergoing complete revascularization had a similar risk of MACEs.

QT Interval Monitoring with Handheld Heart Rhythm ECG Device in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.