Consensus guidelines for interventional cardiology services delivery during covid-19 pandemic in Australia and new Zealand.

The global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented stress on healthcare systems internationally. These Health system-wide demands call for efficient utilisation of resources at this time in a fair, consistent, ethical and efficient manner would improve our ability to treat patients. Excellent co-operation between hospital units (especially intensive care unit [ICU], emergency department [ED] and cardiology) is critical in ensuring optimal patient outcomes. The purpose of this document is to provide practical guidelines for the effective use of interventional cardiology services in Australia and New Zealand. The document will be updated regularly as new evidence and knowledge is gained with time. Goals Considerations.

Subspecialisation in cardiology care and outcome: should clinical services be redesigned, again?

BACKGROUND: Inpatient management of cardiac patients by cardiologists results in reduced mortality and hospitalisation. With increasing subspecialisation of the field because of growing management complexity and use of technological innovations, the impact of sub-specialisation on patient outcomes is unclear. AIM: To investigate whether management by subspecialty cardiologists impacts the outcomes of patients with subspecialty-specific diseases. METHODS: All patients admitted to a tertiary centre over nine years with a diagnosis of heart failure, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or primary arrhythmia were reviewed. The outcomes of these patients managed by cardiologists subspecialised in their admission diagnosis (heart failure specialists, interventionalists and electrophysiologists) were compared with those treated by general cardiologists. RESULTS: Heart failure was diagnosed in 1704 patients, ACS in 7763 and arrhythmia in 4398. There was no difference in length of stay (LOS) (P = 0.26), mortality (P = 0.57) or cardiovascular readmissions (P = 0.50) in heart failure patients treated by general cardiologists compared with subspecialists. In ACS patients, subspecialty management was associated with reduced LOS, cardiovascular readmissions and mortality (all P < 0.05). This reduction in mortality was seen mainly in lower risk patients (P < 0.05). There was a reduction in LOS and cardiovascular readmissions in arrhythmia patients receiving subspecialty management (both P < 0.05) but no difference in mortality (P = 0.14). ACS patients managed by interventionalists were more likely to undergo coronary intervention (P < 0.05). Electrophysiologists more frequently referred patients for catheter ablation and pacemaker implantation than general cardiologists (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of subspecialty care seem attributable to the appropriate selection of patients who would benefit from technological innovations in care. These results suggest that the development of healthcare systems which align cardiovascular disease with the subspecialist may be more effective.

Initial experience with the balloon expandable Edwards-SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve in Australia and New Zealand: the SOURCE ANZ registry: outcomes at 30 days and one year.

BACKGROUND: We report the findings of the SOURCE-ANZ registry of the clinical outcomes of the Edwards SAPIEN™ Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) in the Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) clinical environment. METHODS: This single arm registry of select patients treated in eight centres, represent the initial experience within ANZ with the balloon expandable Edwards SAPIEN THV delivered by transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) access. RESULTS: The total enrolment for the study was 132 patients, 63 patients treated by TF, 56 by TA, and 2 patients were withdrawn from the study. The mean ages: 83.7 (TF) and 81.7 (TA), female: 34.3% (TF) and 61.3% (TA), logistic EuroSCORE: 26.8% (TF) and 28.8% (TA), and with procedural success (successful implant without conversion to surgery or death): 92.4% (TF) and 87.1% (TA) (p=0.32). Outcomes were not significantly different between TF and TA implants. These included one year mortality of 13.6% (TF) and 21.7% (TA) (p=0.24), MACCE: 16.7% (TF) and 28.3% (TA) (p=0.12), pacemaker: 4.6% (TF) and 8.3% (TA) (p=0.39), and VARC major vascular complication of 4.6% (TF) and 5.0% (TA) (p=0.91). CONCLUSION: TAVI in the ANZ clinical environment has demonstrated excellent outcomes for both the TA and TF approaches in highly selected patients. These results are consistent with those demonstrated in European, Canadian registries and the pivotal US clinical trials. ACTRN12611001026910.