The Current Role of Viability Imaging to Guide Revascularization and Therapy Decisions in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Left Ventricular Function

This review describes the current evidence and controversies for viability imaging to direct revascularization decisions and the impact on patient outcomes. Balancing procedural risks and possible benefit from revascularization is a key question in patients with heart failure of ischemic origin (IHF). Different stages of ischemia induce adaptive changes in myocardial metabolism and function. Viable but dysfunctional myocardium has the potential to recover after restoring blood flow. Modern imaging techniques demonstrate different aspects of viable myocardium; perfusion (single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT], positron emission tomography [PET], cardiovascular magnetic resonance [CMR]), cell metabolism (PET), cell membrane integrity and mitochondrial function (201Tl and 99mTc-based SPECT), contractile reserve (stress echocardiography, CMR) and scar (CMR). Observational studies suggest that patients with IHF and significant viable myocardium may benefit from revascularization compared with medical treatment alone but that in patients without significant viability, revascularization appears to offer no survival benefit or could even worsen the outcome. This was not supported by 2 randomized trials (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure [STICH] and PET and Recovery Following Revascularization [PARR] -2) although post-hoc analyses suggest that benefit can be achieved if decisions had been strictly based on viability imaging recommendations. Based on current evidence, viability testing should not be the routine for all patients with IHF considered for revascularization but rather integrated with clinical data to guide decisions on revascularization of high-risk patients with comorbidities.Peer reviewe

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Cardiac I123-MIBG Correlates Better than Ejection Fraction with Symptoms Severity in Systolic Heart Failure

FUNDAMENTO: A associação da ativação autonômica, fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) e classe funcional da insuficiência cardíaca é mal compreendida. Objetivo: Nosso objetivo foi correlacionar a gravidade dos sintomas com a atividade simpática cardíaca, através do uso de iodo-123-metaiodobenzilguanidina (123I-MIBG); e com FEVE em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca (IC) sistólica sem tratamento prévio com betabloqueador. MÉTODOS: Trinta e um pacientes com IC sistólica, classe I a IV da New York Heart Association (NYHA), sem tratamento prévio com betabloqueador, foram inscritos e submetidos à cintilografia com 123I-MIBG e ventriculografia radioisotópica para determinação da FEVE. A relação precoce e tardia coração/mediastino (H/M) e a taxa de washout (WO) foram medidas. RESULTADOS: De acordo com a gravidade dos sintomas, os pacientes foram divididos em grupo A, com 13 pacientes em classe funcional NYHA I/II, e grupo B, com 18 pacientes em classe funcional NYHA III/ IV. Em comparação com os pacientes do grupo B, o grupo A apresentou uma FEVE significativamente maior (25% ± 12% para o grupo B vs. 32% ± 7% no grupo A, p = 0,04). As relações precoces e tardias H/M do Grupo B foram menores do que as do grupo A (H/M precoce 1,49 ± 0,15 vs. 1,64 ± 0,14, p = 0,02; H/M tardia 1,39 ± 0,13 vs. 1,58 ± 0,16, p = 0,001, respectivamente). A taxa de WO foi significativamente maior no grupo B (36% ± 17% vs. 30% ± 12%, p = 0,04). A variável que mostrou a melhor correlação com a NYHA foi a relação H/M tardia (r = -0,585, p = 0,001), ajustada para idade e sexo. CONCLUSÃO: Esse estudo mostrou que o 123I-MIBG cardíaco se correlaciona melhor do que a fração de ejeção com a gravidade dos sintomas em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca sistólica sem tratamento prévio com beta-bloqueador

Fatal pulmonary embolism in hospitalized patients. Clinical diagnosis versus pathological confirmation

OBJECTIVE - To assess the incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism (FPE), the accuracy of clinical diagnosis, and the profile of patients who suffered an FPE in a tertiary University Hospital. METHODS - Analysis of the records of 3,890 autopsies performed at the Department of General Pathology from January 1980 to December 1990. RESULTS - Among the 3,980 autopsies, 109 were cases of clinically suspected FPE; of these, 28 cases of FPE were confirmed. FPE accounted for 114 deaths, with clinical suspicion in 28 cases. The incidence of FPE was 2.86%. No difference in sex distribution was noted. Patients in the 6th decade of life were most affected. The following conditions were more commonly related to FPE: neoplasias (20%) and heart failure (18.5%). The conditions most commonly misdiagnosed as FPE were pulmonary edema (16%), pneumonia (15%) and myocardial infarction (10%). The clinical diagnosis of FPE showed a sensitivity of 25.6%, a specificity of 97.9%, and an accuracy of 95.6%. CONCLUSION - The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism made on clinical grounds still has considerable limitations

Improvement of diagnostic accuracy of 18fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography in detection of infective endocarditis using a 72-h low carbs protocol

BACKGROUND: The major challenge in diagnosing infective endocarditis using fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) is the high physiological myocardial F-FDG uptake, which may interfere with the detection of pathological uptake. Our aim was to retrospectively analyse the impact of a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (LCHPHF) diet starting 72 h before the examination with classic overnight fasting. METHODS: We included 92 patients (51 with LCHPHF diet 72 h before the examination and 41 with overnight fast only). Left ventricular (LV) myocardial F-FDG uptake was visually evaluated, to estimate the effect of LCHPHF on myocardial F-FDG uptake, we used a three-point visual scale: 0, negligible uptake and evaluable examination; 1, mild uptake and doubtful examination and 2, intense uptake and not evaluable examination. SUVmax and SUVmean were calculated putting a region of interest on LV myocardium at the level of the largest cardiac footprint and on the site of suspected lesion. Thus, a ratio between SUV of the suspect lesion and SUV of LV was calculated as SUV ratio. RESULTS: By visual assessment, in LCHPHF diet group 46 patients (96.1%) had score 0, 3 patients (5.9%) had score 1 and nobody had score 2. In control group, 23 patients (56.1%) had a score 2, 12 (29.3%) patients obtained a score 1 with a doubtful examination and 6 patients (14.6%) were classified with a score 0 with reportable examination. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that an LCHPHF diet can adequately suppress the physiological myocardial uptake leading to a significant improvement in the interpretability and diagnostic accuracy of F-FDG PET/CT in infective endocarditis