key: cord-0855278-i84lzvz6 authors: Demir, Ozan M.; Little, Callum D.; Jabbour, Richard; Rahman, Haseeb; Sayers, Max; Ahmed, Asrar; Connolly, Michelle J.; Kanyal, Ritesh; MacCarthy, Philip; Wilson, Simon J.; Dalby, Miles; Jain, Ajay; Malik, Iqbal; Rakhit, Roby; Perera, Divaka title: Impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on the management of nonculprit lesions in patients presenting with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: Outcomes from the pan‐London heart attack centers date: 2021-12-30 journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30056 sha: 8d2159476d4e7b60f17e5c2b04faf2b9d66b8f89 doc_id: 855278 cord_uid: i84lzvz6 BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID‐19 on the diagnosis and management of nonculprit lesions remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients with nonculprit lesions during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of consecutive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway activations across the heart attack center network in London, UK. Data from the study period in 2020 were compared with prepandemic data in 2019. The primary outcome was the rate of nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 788 patients undergoing PPCI were identified, 209 (60%) in 2020 cohort and 263 (60%) in 2019 cohort had nonculprit lesions (p = .89). There was less functional assessment of the significance of nonculprit lesions in the 2020 cohort compared to 2019 cohort; in 8% 2020 cohort versus 15% 2019 cohort (p = .01). There was no difference in rates of PCI for nonculprit disease in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (31% vs 30%, p = .11). Patients in 2020 cohort underwent nonculprit lesion PCI sooner than the 2019 cohort (p < .001). At 6 months there was higher rates of unplanned revascularization (4% vs. 2%, p = .05) and repeat myocardial infarction (4% vs. 1%, p = .02) in the 2019 cohort compared to 2020 cohort. CONCLUSION: Changes to clinical practice during the COVID‐19 pandemic were associated with reduced rates of unplanned revascularization and myocardial infarction at 6‐months follow‐up, and despite the pandemic, there was no difference in mortality, suggesting that it is not only safe but maybe more efficacious. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated an unprecedented restructuring of clinical pathways in cardiac centers globally. In the UK, there was a significant reduction in elective admissions in an effort to create capacity lacking for COVID-19 patients. For interventional cardiology, this culminated in reduced capacity for elective procedures. 1 Concomitantly, patients with COVID-19 presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were shown to have increased incidence and burden of thrombotic culprit lesions. 2 However, it is not known whether COVID-19 has impacted the diagnosis and management of nonculprit lesions. Of note, randomized trials involving more than 6300 patients over the last decade all agree that revascularization of noculprit lesions at STEMI is superior to medical therapy alone. 3 However, the role of coronary physiology in this setting for the assessment of nonculprit lesions remains unclear. Recently, the FLOWER-MI study attempted to answer this question by utilization of coronary physiology to adjudicate stenosis severity in the setting of STEMI. It showed that there was no difference in the primary endpoint which was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization at 1 year between fractional flow reserve (FFR)-and angiography-based management. 4 We hypothesized that the rate of interventional treatment of nonculprit lesions during the pandemic would be lower than it was beforehand, and that rate of coronary physiology utilization would decrease. We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of consecutive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) pathway activations to all seven heart attack centers in London, UK. The PPCI programme in London is the largest urban network of seven heart attack centres in the UK using a single ambulance triggered service and providing 24/7 treatment for STEMI to a population of 9 million. The primary outcome was the rate of nonculprit lesion PCI and secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (at 30 days and 6 months) and procedural timing and characteristics. Major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality during STEMI-related hospitalization were determined from electronic patient records and discharge summaries. In addition, baseline demographic characteristics were also retrieved. All events are reported cumulatively at respective time points. Normality of data was assessed by the histogram, normal Q-Q plot, and Shapiro-Wilk test. Continuous normal data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared using paired Student's t tests. Nonnormal data are expressed as median (interquartile range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney test. Categorical data were presented as numbers with percentages and compared using the χ 2 test. A p < 0.05 was deemed to be of statistical significance. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 27 (IBM Corp). A total of 788 patients undergoing primary PCI were identified, 348 during 2020 and 440 during 2019 study periods. Of these, 209 (60%) in 2020 cohort and 263 (60%) in 2019 cohort had nonculprit lesions (p = .89). No differences between 2019 and 2020 cohorts were identified in terms of baseline characteristics or the delays from onset of chest pain to the first call for help or door-to-balloon time (Table 1) . However, first-call-to-door time was significantly longer in the 2020 cohort compared with the 2019 cohort (p = .001). Nonculprit lesion characteristics were similar, including number, location, and severity of the lesion(s) ( Table 2 ). There was the less functional assessment of the significance of nonculprit lesions in the 2020 cohort compared to the 2019 cohort; a pressure wire or a noninvasive ischemia test was utilized in 8% 2020 cohort versus 15% 2019 cohort (p = .01) ( Table 1 ). There was no difference in rates of PCI for nonculprit disease in the 2019 and 2020 cohorts (31% vs. This may have contributed to the reduction seen in PPCI activations worldwide in 2020. Fourth, its observational design includes potential selection bias due to a reduction in STEMI admission in 2020 compared to 2019, whereby higher-risk patients potentially did not make it to the hospital. Fifth, the relatively small size of the two cohorts with nonculprit lesions may have impacted findings in this study. Finally, the outcome of those patients who did not present to the PPCI service is unknown. They may have significantly worse late outcomes, with heart failure, arrhythmia, and death as yet unmeasured in the community. In our study, changes to clinical practice during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with reduced rates of unplanned revascularization and myocardial infarction at 6-months follow-up, and despite the pandemic, there was no difference in mortality, suggesting that it is not only safe but may be more efficacious. This could also have significant resource implications even beyond the pandemic. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on percutaneous coronary intervention in England: insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI Database Cohort COVID-19 pandemic and STEMI: pathway activation and outcomes from the pan-London heart attack group Evaluation and management of nonculprit lesions in STEMI Multivessel PCI guided by FFR or angiography for myocardial infarction ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry framework: a quality improvement initiative on behalf of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) Culprit vessel-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction Complete vs culprit-lesion-only revascularization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Personal protective equipment and donning and doffing techniques in the cardiac catheterization laboratory during the covid-19 pandemic: insights from an Internet search for protocols Behavioural determinants impacting the adoption rate of coronary physiology Utilization and outcomes of measuring fractional flow reserve in patients with stable ischemic heart disease Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the management of nonculprit lesions in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: outcomes from the pan-London heart attack centers This study was supported by the British Heart Foundation (PG/19/9/ 34228) and the National Institute for Health Research via the Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital and King's College London. The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.