Surgical scrubs to be worn. These will need to be changed with each case if a COVID-positive case is treated or there is any concern about soiling. No jewellery

Objectives To determine the prevalence and types of viral pathogens in the myocardium of patients presenting with clinically suspected myocarditis in South Africa. Method This is a prospective cross-sectional study. Consecutive adults presenting to a single tertiary centre in South Africa between August 2017 and January 2021 who fulfilled the European Society of Cardiology’s diagnostic criteria for clinically suspected myocarditis and who had undergone the appropriate investigations, including cardiac MRI (CMR) and endomyocardial biopsy (EMB), were included. Results One hundred and two patients with clinically suspected myocarditis were enrolled. Acute myocarditis (AM) was confirmed by CMR or EMB in 82 (80.39%) patients. Viral genomes were detected by PCR in EMB specimens of 50 patients with AM. Parvovirus B19 (PVB19) was the most frequently detected virus, in 37 as monoinfection and 4 as coinfection. This was followed by Epstein-Barr virus (n=6), human herpesvirus 6 (n=2) and human bocavirus (n=1). PVB19 was also detected in 9 patients with no evidence of AM on CMR or EMB. Conclusion Viral myocarditis is the most common form of myocarditis in South Africa. Local viral prevalence appears to be similar those of the developed world. The clinical significance and pathogenic role of PVB19 remains questioned, and its local background prevalence will have to be further investigated.

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is considered the reference imaging modality in providing a non-invasive diagnosis of acute myocarditis (AM), as it allows for the detection of myocardial injury associated with AM. However, the diagnostic sensitivity and pattern of CMR findings appear to differ according to clinical presentation. This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. Consecutive adult patients presenting to a single tertiary centre in South Africa between August 2017 and January 2022 with AM confirmed on endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) were enrolled. Patients with infarct-like symptoms, defined as those presenting primarily with chest pain syndrome with associated ST-T wave changes on electrocardiogram, or heart failure (HF) symptoms, defined as clinical signs and symptoms of HF without significant chest discomfort, were compared using contrasted CMR and parametric techniques with EMB confirmation of AM as diagnostic gold standard. Forty-one patients were identified including 23 (56%) with infarct-like symptoms and 18 (44%) with HF symptoms. On CMR, the infarct-like group had significantly higher ejection fractions of both ventricles (LVEF 55.3 ± 15.3% vs. 34.4 ± 13.5%, p < 0.001; RVEF 57.3 ± 10.9% vs. 42.9 ± 18.2%, p = 0.008), without significant differences in end diastolic volumes (LVEDVI 82.7 ± 30.3 ml/m2 vs. 103.4 ± 35.9 ml/m2, p = 0.06; RVEDVI 73.7 ± 22.1 ml/m2 vs. 83.9 ± 29.9 ml/m2, p = 0.25). Myocardial oedema was detected more frequently on T2-weighted imaging (91.3% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.03) and in more myocardial segments [3.0 (IQR 2.0–4.0) vs. 1.0 (IQR 0–1.0), p = 0.003] in the infarct-like group. Despite the absence of a significant statistical difference in the prevalence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) between the two groups (95.7% vs. 72.2%, p = 0.07), the infarct-like group had LGE detectable in significantly more ventricular segments [4.5 (IQR 2.3–6.0) vs. 2.0 (IQR 0–3.3), p = 0.02] and in a different distribution. The sensitivity of the original Lake Louise Criteria (LLC) was 91.3% in infarct-like patients and 55.6% in HF patients. When the updated LLC, which included the use of parametric myocardial mapping techniques, were applied, the sensitivity improved to 95.7% and 72.2% respectively. The pattern of CMR findings and its diagnostic sensitivity appears to differ in AM patients presenting with infarct-like and HF symptoms. Although the sensitivity of the LLC improved with the addition of parametric mapping in the HF group, it remained lower than that of the infarct-like group, and suggests that EMB should be considered earlier in the course of patients with clinically suspected AM presenting with HF.

Acute severe cardiac valve emergencies, such as acute severe mitral regurgitation (AMR) and acute severe aortic regurgitation (AAR), present significant challenges in terms of diagnosis and management. Handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices have emerged as potentially pivotal tools in ensuring the prompt and accurate diagnosis of these left-sided valve emergencies by emergency physicians, particularly in resource-limited settings. Despite the increased utilisation of point-of-care ultrasound by emergency physicians for the management of patients in states of acute cardiorespiratory failure, current diagnostic protocols cannot perform sufficient quantitative assessments of the left-sided cardiac valves. This review elucidates and evaluates the diagnostic utility of handheld point-of-care focused-echocardiography (HoPE) in native AMR and AAR by reviewing the relevant literature and the use of clinical case examples from the Emergency Department at Port Shepstone Regional Hospital (PSRH-ED)—a rural, resource-limited hospital located in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Combining the findings of the review and clinical case illustrations, this review proceeds to synthesise a novel, Bayesian-inspired, iterative diagnostic framework that integrates HoPE into the evaluation of patients with acute cardiorespiratory failure and suspected severe left-sided valve lesions.

Background: Chronic heart failure has high morbidity and mortality, with approximately half of the patients dying within 5 years of diagnosis. Recent additions to the armamentarium of anti–heart failure therapies include angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is). Both classes have demonstrated mortality and morbidity benefits. Although these new therapies have morbidity and mortality benefits, it is not known whether rapid initiation is beneficial when compared with the conventional, slower-stepped approach. Many clinicians have been taught that starting with low-dose therapies and gradually increasing the dose is a safe way of intensifying treatment regimens. Pharmacologically, it is rational to use a combination of drugs that target multiple pathological mechanisms, as there is potential synergism and better therapeutic outcomes. Theoretically, the quicker the right combinations are used, the more likely the beneficial effects will be experienced. However, rapid up-titration must be balanced with patient safety and tolerability. Objective: This study aims to determine if early addition of ARNIs, SGLT2is, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (within 4 weeks), when compared with the same therapies initiated slower (within 6 months), will reduce all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Methods: This is a single-center, randomized controlled, double-arm, assessor-blinded, active control, and pragmatic clinical trial. Adults with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy will be randomized to conventional sequencing (the control arm; over 6 months) of anti–heart failure therapies, and a second arm will receive rapid sequencing (over 4 weeks). Study participants will be followed for 5 years to assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of the 2 types of sequencing. Posttrial access and care will be provided to all study participants throughout their lifespan. Results: We are currently in the process of obtaining ethical clearance and funding. Conclusions: We envisage that this study will help support evidence-based medicine and inform clinical practice guidelines on the optimal rate of sequencing of anti–heart failure therapies. A third placebo arm was considered, but costs would be too much and not providing study participants with therapies with known morbidity and mortality benefits may be unethical, in our opinion. Given the post–COVID-19 economic downturn and posttrial access to interventions, a major challenge will be acquiring funding for this study. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/44027