Abstract Background Current guidelines strongly recommend that oral anticoagulation should be offered to patients with atrial fibrillation and ≥1 stroke risk factors. The guidelines also recommend ...that oral anticoagulation still should be used in the presence of stroke risk factors irrespective of rate or rhythm control. Methods In an analysis from the dataset of the EURObservational Research Programme on Atrial Fibrillation Pilot Survey (n = 3119), we examined antithrombotic therapy prescribing, with particular focus on the risk factors determining oral anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy use. Results When oral anticoagulation was used among admitted patients in whom no pharmacologic cardioversion, electrical cardioversion, or catheter ablation was performed or planned, vitamin K antagonist therapy was prescribed in the majority (72.2%), whereas novel oral anticoagulants were used in the minority (7.7%). There was no significant difference in bleeding risk factors among the patients treated with the different types of antithrombotic therapies, except for those with chronic kidney disease, in whom oral anticoagulation was less commonly used ( P = .0318). Antiplatelet therapy was more commonly used in patients with a high Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly (>65 years), Drugs/alcohol concomitantly score (≥2) ( P < .0001). More oral anticoagulation use was associated with female gender ( P = .0245). Less novel oral anticoagulant use was associated with valvular heart disease ( P < .0001), chronic heart failure ( P = .0010), coronary artery disease ( P < .0001), and peripheral artery disease ( P = .0092). Coronary artery disease was the strongest reason for combination therapy with oral anticoagulation plus antiplatelet drug (odds ratio, 8.54; P < .0001). When the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 Doubled, Diabetes, Stroke Doubled-Vascular disease, Age 65-74, and Sex category female score was used, 95.6% of patients with a score ≥1 received antithrombotic therapy, with 80.5% of patients with a score ≥1 receiving oral anticoagulation. Of note, 83.7% of those with a score ≥2 received antithrombotic therapy. Of the latter, 70.9% of those with a score ≥2 received oral anticoagulation, vitamin K antagonists were used in 64.1%, and novel oral anticoagulants were used in 6.9%. Conclusions The EURObservational Research Programme on Atrial Fibrillation Pilot Survey provides contemporary data on oral anticoagulation prescribing by European cardiologists for atrial fibrillation. Although the uptake of oral anticoagulation (mostly vitamin K antagonist therapy) has improved since the Euro Heart Survey a decade ago, antiplatelet therapy is still commonly prescribed, with or without oral anticoagulation, whereas elderly patients are commonly undertreated with oral anticoagulation.
Published data suggest worse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and concurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Mechanisms remain unclear.
The purpose of this study was ...to report the demographics, angiographic findings, and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 ACS patients and compare these with pre–COVID-19 cohorts.
From March 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020, data from 55 international centers were entered into a prospective, COVID-ACS Registry. Patients were COVID-19 positive (or had a high index of clinical suspicion) and underwent invasive coronary angiography for suspected ACS. Outcomes were in-hospital major cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, re–myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or stent thrombosis). Results were compared with national pre–COVID-19 databases (MINAP Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project 2019 and BCIS British Cardiovascular Intervention Society 2018 to 2019).
In 144 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 121 non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients, symptom-to-admission times were significantly prolonged (COVID-STEMI vs. BCIS: median 339.0 min vs. 173.0 min; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS vs. MINAP: 417.0 min vs. 295.0 min; p = 0.012). Mortality in COVID-ACS patients was significantly higher than BCIS/MINAP control subjects in both subgroups (COVID-STEMI: 22.9% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS: 6.6% vs. 1.2%; p < 0.001), which remained following multivariate propensity analysis adjusting for comorbidities (STEMI subgroup odds ratio: 3.33 95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 5.42). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 20.1% of COVID-STEMI patients versus 8.7% of BCIS patients (p < 0.001).
In this multicenter international registry, COVID-19–positive ACS patients presented later and had increased in-hospital mortality compared with a pre–COVID-19 ACS population. Excessive rates of and mortality from cardiogenic shock were major contributors to the worse outcomes in COVID-19 positive STEMI patients.
Display omitted
PDF