Peter A. McCullough M.D.

Barker, C.M., Cork, D.P., McCullough, P.A., Mehta, H.S., Houten, J.V., Gunnarsson, C., Mollenkopf, S. and Verta, P. (2020). “Healthcare utilization in clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation patients with and without heart failure.” J Comp Eff Res Nov 11. [Epub ahead of print.].

Full text of this article.

Aim: This study evaluated how the presence of right-sided heart disease (RSHD), other valve disease (OVD) and heart failure (HF) impacts healthcare utilization in patients with tricuspid valve disease (tricuspid regurgitation [TR]). Materials & methods: Of the 33,686 patients with TR: 6618 (19.6%) had TR-only; 8952 (26.6%) had TR with HF; 12,367 (36.7%) had TR with OVD but no HF; and 5749 (17.1%) had TR with RSHD only. Results: The presence of RSHD, OVD or HF in patients with TR was independently associated with increased annualized hospitalizations, hospital days and costs relative to patients with TR alone. Conclusion: All three co-morbidities were associated with increased healthcare utilization, with HF showing the greatest impact across all measures.

Aldujeli, A., Hamadeh, A., Briedis, K., Tecson, K.M., Rutland, J., Krivickas, Z., Stiklioraitis, S., Briede, K., Aldujeili, M., Unikas, R., Zaliaduonyte, D., Zaliunas, R., Vallabhan, R.C. and McCullough, P.A. (2020). “Delays in Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Cardiol Res 11(6): 386-391.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has had a major impact on the behavior of patients, as well as on the delivery of healthcare services. With older and more medically vulnerable people tending to stay at home to avoid contracting the virus, it is unclear how the behavior of people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has changed. The aim of this study was to determine if delays in presentation and healthcare service delivery for AMI exist during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period a year prior. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective study, we evaluated patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020 to April 20, 2020) compared to patients admitted with same diagnosis during the same period a year prior. RESULTS: There were 30 and 62 patients who presented with NSTEMI in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively. The median pain-to-door time was significantly larger during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (1,885 (880, 5,732) vs. 606 (388, 944) min, P < 0.0001). There was a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time during the pandemic with a median time of 332 (182, 581) vs. 194 (92, 329) min (P = 0.0371). There were 24 (80%) and 25 (42%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0006). There were 47 and 60 patients who presented with STEMI during the pandemic timeframe of study and pre-pandemic timeframe, respectively. The median pain-to-door time during the pandemic was significantly larger than that of the pre-pandemic (620 (255, 1,500) vs. 349 (146, 659) min, P = 0.0141). There were 22 (47%) and 14 (24%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0127). There was not a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time (P = 0.9833). There were no differences in in-hospital death, stroke, or length of hospitalization between early and late presenters, as well as between pandemic and pre-pandemic eras. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study found that patients waited significantly longer during the pandemic to seek medical treatment for AMI compared to before the pandemic, and that pandemic-specific protocols may delay revascularization for NSTEMI patients. These findings resulted in more than a threefold increase from the onset of symptoms to revascularization increasing the risks for future complications such as left ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular death. Efforts should be made to increase patients' awareness regarding consequences of delayed presentation, and to find a balance between hospital evaluation strategies and goals of minimizing total ischemic time.

Palazzuoli, A., Mancone, M., De Ferrari, G.M., Forleo, G., Secco, G.G., Ruocco, G.M., D’Ascenzo, F., Monticone, S., Paggi, A., Vicenzi, M., Palazzo, A.G., Landolina, M., Taravelli, E., Tavazzi, G., Blasi, F., Infusino, F., Fedele, F., De Rosa, F.G., Emmett, M., Schussler, J.M., Tecson, K.M. and McCullough, P.A. (2020). “Antecedent Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists and Survival After Hospitalization for COVID-19 Syndrome.” J Am Heart Assoc 9(22): e017364.

Full text of this article.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to enter human cells. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) are associated with ACE-2 upregulation. We hypothesized that antecedent use of ACEI/ARB may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 4 regions of Italy, and restricted analyses to those ≥50 years of age. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Among these 781 patients, 133 (17.0%) used an ARB and 171 (21.9%) used an ACEI. While neither sex nor smoking status differed by user groups, patients on ACEI/ARB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (118/781) and increased with age (P(Trend)<0.0001). The crude odds ratios (ORs) for death for ACEI users and ARB users were 0.98, 95% CI, 0.60-1.60, P=0.9333, and 1.13, 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P=0.6385, respectively. After adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure, antecedent ACEI administration was associated with reduced mortality (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98, P=0.0436); a similar, but weaker trend was observed for ARB administration (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.07, P=0.0796). Conclusions In those aged ≥50 years hospitalized with COVID-19, antecedent use of ACEI was independently associated with reduced risk of inpatient death. Our findings suggest a protective role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients with high cardiovascular risk affected by COVID-19.

Mahajan, P., Dass, B., Radhakrishnan, N. and McCullough, P.A. (2020). “COVID-19-Associated Systemic Thromboembolism: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.” Cardiorenal Med Oct 22;1-8. [Epub ahead of print]. 1-8.

Full text of this article.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that has affected >188 countries, involved >24 million people, and caused >840,000 deaths. COVID-19, in its severe form, presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), shock, and multiorgan failure. Thrombotic microangiopathy of the lungs and kidneys has been observed in these patients. Elevated D-dimer levels have been observed in people with serious COVID-19 illness, and this could be helpful in guiding treatment with anticoagulation in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role of anticoagulation as a treatment modality for COVID-19. METHODS: We present the unique case of a COVID-19 patient who developed sepsis, ARDS, acute kidney injury, and deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), who was deteriorating clinically. She was treated with anticoagulation. RESULTS: There was rapid recovery after treatment with systemic anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic anticoagulation could prove to be essential in the treatment of CO-VID-19. Further studies are required to assess its role in improving long-term morbidity and mortality in these patients.

Aldujeli, A., Hamadeh, A., Briedis, K., Tecson, K.M., Rutland, J., Krivickas, Z., Stiklioraitis, S., Briede, K., Aldujeili, M., Unikas, R., Zaliaduonyte, D., Zaliunas, R., Vallabhan, R.C. and McCullough, P.A. (2020). “Delays in Presentation in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Cardiol Res 11(6): 386-391.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has had a major impact on the behavior of patients, as well as on the delivery of healthcare services. With older and more medically vulnerable people tending to stay at home to avoid contracting the virus, it is unclear how the behavior of people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has changed. The aim of this study was to determine if delays in presentation and healthcare service delivery for AMI exist during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period a year prior. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective study, we evaluated patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020 to April 20, 2020) compared to patients admitted with same diagnosis during the same period a year prior. RESULTS: There were 30 and 62 patients who presented with NSTEMI in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively. The median pain-to-door time was significantly larger during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (1,885 (880, 5,732) vs. 606 (388, 944) min, P < 0.0001). There was a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time during the pandemic with a median time of 332 (182, 581) vs. 194 (92, 329) min (P = 0.0371). There were 24 (80%) and 25 (42%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0006). There were 47 and 60 patients who presented with STEMI during the pandemic timeframe of study and pre-pandemic timeframe, respectively. The median pain-to-door time during the pandemic was significantly larger than that of the pre-pandemic (620 (255, 1,500) vs. 349 (146, 659) min, P = 0.0141). There were 22 (47%) and 14 (24%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0127). There was not a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time (P = 0.9833). There were no differences in in-hospital death, stroke, or length of hospitalization between early and late presenters, as well as between pandemic and pre-pandemic eras. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study found that patients waited significantly longer during the pandemic to seek medical treatment for AMI compared to before the pandemic, and that pandemic-specific protocols may delay revascularization for NSTEMI patients. These findings resulted in more than a threefold increase from the onset of symptoms to revascularization increasing the risks for future complications such as left ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular death. Efforts should be made to increase patients' awareness regarding consequences of delayed presentation, and to find a balance between hospital evaluation strategies and goals of minimizing total ischemic time.