Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionEuropean valvular heart disease guidelines define women as a ‘special group’. To explore what factors have led us to consider more than 50% of the global population special, we assessed access to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by sex on national and local levels and studied post-TAVI outcomes by sex within our centre.MethodsPopulation statistics from census data were compared against British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) audit and local data.Using the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research TAVI database, a retrospective analysis of 1049 consecutive patients from 2013 to 2023 was conducted at our UK tertiary centre.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, a three-point composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comprising death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke during TAVI admission, and post-TAVI survival.ResultsNationally, females comprise 60% of over 75-year-olds; however, TAVI was performed more frequently in males: nationally (55.2% vs 44.8%, p<0.01) and locally (53.2% vs 46.8%, p<0.01). Males were 1.82 times more likely to undergo TAVI.Locally, females undergoing TAVI were older and had worse renal function, higher frailty and greater transvalvular gradients. Males had more cardiovascular comorbidity.In-hospital mortality and MACE did not differ by sex. Median survival was longer in females (1350 days vs 1728 days, p=0.02). Regression analysis demonstrated female sex as a predictor of increased survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88, p<0.01). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, frailty and poor mobility were identified as predictors of reduced survival.ConclusionIn this retrospective, observational study, we have demonstrated an under-representation of females undergoing TAVI. This observation is likely of multifactorial cause, including different disease recognition, referral, investigation and treatment practices.We observed no difference in procedural death or MACE, but longer female survival, despite higher baseline age, frailty and renal impairment.

ObjectivesTo understand the impact of COVID-19 on delivery and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Furthermore, to compare clinical presentation and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with active COVID-19 against those without COVID-19.MethodsWe systematically analysed 348 STEMI cases presenting to the PPCI programme in London during the peak of the pandemic (1 March to 30 April 2020) and compared with 440 cases from the same period in 2019. Outcomes of interest included ambulance response times, timeliness of revascularisation, angiographic and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital clinical outcomesResultsThere was a 21% reduction in STEMI admissions and longer ambulance response times (87 (62–118) min in 2020 vs 75 (57–95) min in 2019, p<0.001), but that this was not associated with a delays in achieving revascularisation once in hospital (48 (34–65) min in 2020 vs 48 (35–70) min in 2019, p=0.35) or increased mortality (10.9% (38) in 2020 vs 8.6% (38) in 2019, p=0.28). 46 patients with active COVID-19 were more thrombotic and more likely to have intensive care unit admissions (32.6% (15) vs 9.3% (28), OR 5.74 (95%CI 2.24 to 9.89), p<0.001). They also had increased length of stay (4 (3–9) days vs 3 (2–4) days, p<0.001) and a higher mortality (21.7% (10) vs 9.3% (28), OR 2.72 (95% CI 1.25 to 5.82), p=0.012) compared with patients having PPCI without COVID-19.ConclusionThese findings suggest that PPCI pathways can be maintained during unprecedented healthcare emergencies but confirms the high mortality of STEMI in the context of concomitant COVID-19 infection characterised by a heightened state of thrombogenicity.

Background: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with increased mortality from coronary heart disease. This excess risk, relative to affluent patients, may be due to a combination of more adverse cardiovascular-risk factors, inequalities in access to cardiac investigations, longer waiting times for cardiac revascularisation and lower use of secondary prevention drugs. We sought to investigate whether socio-economic status influenced long-term all-cause mortality after PCI in a large metropolitan city (London), which serves a population of 11 million people with a mixed social background over a 10-year period. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of 123,780 consecutive PCI procedures from the Pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry. This data set is collected prospectively and includes all patients treated between January 2005 and December 2015. The database includes PCI performed for stable angina and ACS (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina). Patient socio-economic status was defined by the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score, according to residential postcode. Patients were analysed by quintile of IMD score (Q1, least deprived; Q5, most deprived). Median follow-up was 3.7 (IQR: 2.0–5.1) years and the primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: The mean age of the patients was 64.3 ± 12.1 years and 25.2% were female. A total of 22.4% of patients were diabetic and 27.3% had a history of previous myocardial infarction. The rates of long-term all-cause mortality increased progressively across quintiles of IMD score, with patients in Q5 showing significantly higher long-term mortality rates compared with patients in Q1 (p = 0.0044). This persisted following the inclusion of a propensity score in the proportional hazard model as a covariate (HR for Q5 compared to Q1: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.10–1.42]). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that low SES is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes following PCI in the large, diverse metropolitan city of London. There clearly are inequalities in cardio-vascular risk factors, time to access to medical treatment/PCI, access to complex imaging and devices during PCI, access to secondary prevention after PCI, and even race differences. Hence, attention to reducing the burden of cardiovascular risk factors and improving primary prevention, particularly in patients with lower SES, is required.

Background Despite pre-kidney-transplant cardiovascular (CV) assessment being routine care to minimise perioperative risk, the utility of such assessment is not well established. The study reviewed the evaluation and outcome of a standardised CV assessment protocol. Methods Data were analysed for 231 patients (age 53.4 ± 12.9 years, diabetes 34.6%) referred for kidney transplantation between 1/2/2012-31/12/2014. One hundred forty-three patients were high-risk (age > 60 years, diabetes, CV disease, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease) and offered dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE); 88 patients were low-risk and offered ECG and echocardiography with/without exercise treadmill test. Results At the end of follow-up (579 ± 289 days), 35 patients underwent kidney transplantation and 50 were active on the waitlist. There were 24 events (CV or death), none were perioperative. One hundred fifteen patients had DSE with proportionally more events in DSE-positive compared to DSE-negative patients (6/34 vs. 7/81, p  = 0.164). In 42 patients who underwent coronary angiography due to a positive DSE or ischaemic heart disease symptoms, 13 (31%) had events, 6 were suspended, 11 removed from waitlist, 3 wait-listed, 1 transplanted and 17 still undergoing assessment. Patients with significant coronary artery disease requiring intervention had poorer event-free survival compared to those without intervention (56% vs. 83% at 2 years, p  = 0.044). However, the association became non-significant after correction for CV risk factors (HR = 3.17, 95% CI 0.51–19.59, p  = 0.215). Conclusions The stratified CV risk assessment protocol using DSE in all high-risk patients was effective in identifying patients with coronary artery disease. The coronary angiograms identified the event-prone patients effectively but coronary interventions were not associated with improved survival.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has called for a randomised trial of delivery to a cardiac arrest centre. We aimed to assess whether expedited delivery to a cardiac arrest centre compared with current standard of care following resuscitated cardiac arrest reduces deaths. ARREST is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation were randomly assigned (1:1) at the scene of their cardiac arrest by London Ambulance Service staff using a secure online randomisation system to expedited delivery to the cardiac catheter laboratory at one of seven cardiac arrest centres or standard of care with delivery to the geographically closest emergency department at one of 32 hospitals in London, UK. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and those reporting treatment outcomes in hospital was not possible. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population excluding those with unknown mortality status. Safety outcomes were analysed in the ITT population. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, 96585404. Between Jan 15, 2018, and Dec 1, 2022, 862 patients were enrolled, of whom 431 (50%) were randomly assigned to a cardiac arrest centre and 431 (50%) to standard care. 20 participants withdrew from the cardiac arrest centre group and 19 from the standard care group, due to lack of consent or unknown mortality status, leaving 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and 412 in the standard care group for the primary analysis. Of 822 participants for whom data were available, 560 (68%) were male and 262 (32%) were female. The primary endpoint of 30-day mortality occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival 1·00, 95% CI 0·90–1·11; p=0·96). Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest centre group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention. In adult patients without ST elevation, transfer to a cardiac arrest centre following resuscitated cardiac arrest in the community did not reduce deaths. British Heart Foundation.

Background: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with increased mortality from coronary heart disease. This excess risk, relative to affluent patients, may be due to a combination of more adverse cardiovascular-risk factors, inequalities in access to cardiac investigations, longer waiting times for cardiac revascularisation and lower use of secondary prevention drugs. We sought to investigate whether socio-economic status influenced long-term all-cause mortality after PCI in a large metropolitan city (London), which serves a population of 11 million people with a mixed social background over a 10-year period. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of 123,780 consecutive PCI procedures from the Pan-London (United Kingdom) PCI registry. This data set is collected prospectively and includes all patients treated between January 2005 and December 2015. The database includes PCI performed for stable angina and ACS (ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina). Patient socio-economic status was defined by the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score, according to residential postcode. Patients were analysed by quintile of IMD score (Q1, least deprived; Q5, most deprived). Median follow-up was 3.7 (IQR: 2.0–5.1) years and the primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: The mean age of the patients was 64.3 ± 12.1 years and 25.2% were female. A total of 22.4% of patients were diabetic and 27.3% had a history of previous myocardial infarction. The rates of long-term all-cause mortality increased progressively across quintiles of IMD score, with patients in Q5 showing significantly higher long-term mortality rates compared with patients in Q1 (p = 0.0044). This persisted following the inclusion of a propensity score in the proportional hazard model as a covariate (HR for Q5 compared to Q1: 1.15 [95% CI: 1.10–1.42]). Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that low SES is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes following PCI in the large, diverse metropolitan city of London. There clearly are inequalities in cardio-vascular risk factors, time to access to medical treatment/PCI, access to complex imaging and devices during PCI, access to secondary prevention after PCI, and even race differences. Hence, attention to reducing the burden of cardiovascular risk factors and improving primary prevention, particularly in patients with lower SES, is required.

Sudden non-traumatic death in young athletes is due to underlying congenital/inherited cardiac diseases in over 80% of cases. The two commonest conditions leading to sudden cardiac death in athletes below the age of 25 years are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is caused by mutations in genes, which code for sarcomeric contractile proteins. It can present with symptoms such as palpitation, presyncope or syncope. In a small number of cases, sudden death is the first clinical manifestation of the condition. It is well established that HCM accounts for over half of all cases sudden cardiac death in young individuals below 25 years of age. The management of HCM broadly encompasses symptom control, familial evaluation and the prevention of sudden death. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, similarly, is a genetic disorder of the heart muscle and leads to symptoms such as palpitation and syncope and more rarely sudden death. The diagnosis of ARVC is most likely underestimated due to the lack of a single diagnostic test and subtle morphological changes in some cases. The diagnosis is based on clinical and family history and non-invasive investigations. The physiological adaptations seen in some athletes, as a response to physical training, may resemble phenotypically mild forms HCM and ARVC. Therefore, a diagnostic algorithm enabling this differentiation would be of importance especially bearing in mind the consequences of a misdiagnosis.