Search

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced hospitals to prioritize COVID-19 patients, restrict resources, and cancel all non-urgent elective cardiac procedures. Clinical visits have only been facilitated for emergency purposes. Fewer patients have been admitted to the hospital for both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI) and a profound decrease in heart failure services has been reported. A similar reduction in the patient presentation is seen for ischemic heart disease, decompensated heart failure, and endocarditis. Cardiovascular services, including catheterization, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), cardiac investigations such as electrocardiograms (ECGs), exercise tolerance test (ETT), dobutamine stress test, computed tomography (CT) angiography, transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) have been reported to have declined and performed on a priority basis. The long-term implications of this decline have been discussed with major concerns of severe cardiac complications and vulnerabilities in cardiac patients. The pandemic has also had psychological impacts on patients causing them to avoid seeking medical help. This review discusses the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of various cardiology services and aims to provide strategies to restore cardiovascular services including structural changes in the hospital to make up for the reduced staff personnel, the use of personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, and provides alternatives for high-risk cardiac imaging, cardiac interventions, and procedures. Implementation of the triage system, risk assessment scores, and telemedicine services in patients and their adaptation to the cardiovascular department have been discussed.

Background: Prevention of stroke by anticoagulation is essential in patients with Atrial fibrillation (AF); with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) being preferred over warfarin in most patients. The Long-term efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) remain unknown. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus) were searched from inception to February 10th, 2021. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and systemicembolism. The safety endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (a composite of major or minor clinically relevant bleeding). Results: A total of three studies with 3039 participants (LAAO = 1465; DOACs = 1574) were included. Mean age was 74.2 and 75.3 years in the LAAO and DOAC group respectively. Average follow-up period was 2 years. There was no difference in terms of cardiac mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40–2.03; p = 0.81), ischemic stroke/TIA (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80–1.65; p = 0.46; I2 = 0) and clinically significant bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50–1.17; p = 0.22; I2 = 69) between the groups. Conclusions: Among patients with AF, LAAO was comparable to DOACs with similar efficacy and safety profiles.

Background: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), primarily performed in patients who fail antiarrhythmic drugs. Whether early catheter ablation, as first-line therapy, is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unclear. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase) were searched until March 28th, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first-line therapy were included. The primary outcome of interest was the first documented recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (symptomatic or asymptomatic; AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia). Secondary outcomes included symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia) and serious adverse events. Unadjusted risk ratios (RR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance considered if the confidence interval (CI) excludes one and p < 0.05. Results: A total of six RCTs with 1212 patients (Ablation n = 609; Antiarrhythmic n = 603) were included. Follow- up period ranged from 1–2 years. Patients who underwent ablation were less likely to experience any recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia when compared to patients receiving antiarrhythmic drugs (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.55–0.73; p < 0.00001). Symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia was also lower in the ablation arm (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.32–0.87; p = 0.01). No statistically significant differences were noted for overall any type of adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68–1.27; p = 0.64) and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.56–1.44; p = 0.65) respectively. Conclusions: Catheter ablation, as first-line therapy, was associated with a significantly lower rate of tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional antiarrhythmic drugs, with a similar adverse effect risk profile. These findings support a catheter ablation strategy as first-line therapy among patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.