Background: Small-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently observed in coronary angiography and linked to a higher risk of lesion failure and restenosis. Currently, treatment of small vessels is not standardized while having drug-eluting stents (DES) or drug-coated balloons (DCBs) as possible strategies. We aimed to conduct a meta-analytic approach to assess the effectiveness of treatment strategies and outcomes for small-vessel CAD.Methods: Comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting treatment strategies of small-vessel CAD with a reference diameter of ≤3.0 mm. Target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as clinical outcomes. Outcomes from single-arm and randomized studies based on measures by means of their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were compared using a meta-analytic approach. Statistical significance was assumed if CIs did not overlap.Results: Thirty-seven eligible studies with a total of 31,835 patients with small-vessel CAD were included in the present analysis. Among those, 28,147 patients were treated with DES (24 studies) and 3,299 patients with DCB (18 studies). Common baseline characteristics were equally distributed in the different studies. TLR rate was 4% in both treatment strategies [0.04; 95% CI 0.03–0.05 (DES) vs. 0.03–0.07 (DCB)]. MI occurred in 3% of patients receiving DES and in 2% treated with DCB [0.03 (0.02–0.04) vs. 0.02 (0.01–0.03)]. All-cause mortality was 3% in the DES group [0.03 (0.02–0.05)] compared with 1% in the DCB group [0.01 (0.00–0.03)]. Approximately 9% of patients with DES developed MACE vs. 4% of patients with DCB [0.09 (0.07–0.10) vs. 0.04 (0.02–0.08)]. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant impact of reference vessel diameter on outcomes.Conclusion: This large meta-analytic approach demonstrates similar clinical and angiographic results between treatment strategies with DES and DCB in small-vessel CAD. Therefore, DES may be waived in small coronary arteries when PCI is performed with DCB.

Objective Deferral of non-emergency cardiac procedures is associated with increased early emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation. This study aimed to identify predictors of worse clinical outcome after deferral of non-emergency cardiovascular interventions. Methods This observational case-control study included consecutive patients whose non-emergency cardiac intervention has been postponed during COVID-19-related lockdown between 19 March and 30 April 2020 (n=193). Cox regression was performed to identify predictors of the combined 1-year end point emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation and death. All patients undergoing non-emergency interventions in the corresponding time period 2019 served as control group (n=216). Results The combined end point of death and emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation occurred in 70 (36.3%) of 193 patients with a postponed cardiovascular intervention. The planned intervention was deferred by a median of 23 (19–36) days. Arterial hypertension (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.00 to 5.12; p=0.049), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.89; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.49; p=0.041) as well as severe valvular heart disease (HR 3.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 5.64; p<0.001) were independent predictors of death or emergency hospitalisation. Kaplan-Maier estimators of the combined end point were 31% in patients with arterial hypertension, 56% in patients with severe valvular heart disease and 77% with both risk factors (HR 12.4, 95% CI 3.8 to 40.7; p<0.001) and only 9% in patients without these risk factors (log rank p<0.001). N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) cut-point of ≥1109 pg/mL best predicts the occurrence of primary end point event in deferred patients (area under the curve 0.71; p<0.001; sensitivity 63.8%, specificity 69.4%). Conclusion Our results suggest that patients with either arterial hypertension, chronic kidney or severe valvular heart disease are at very high risk for emergency hospitalisation and increased mortality in case of postponed cardiac interventions even in supposed stable clinical status. Risk seems to be even higher in patients suffering from a combination of these conditions. If the ongoing or future pandemics force hospitals again to postpone cardiac interventions, the biomarker NT-proBNP is an applicable parameter for outpatient monitoring to identify those at risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

Patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention were included in this study. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between transradial and transfemoral access.

Background: Data on the relation between non-emergency and emergency cardiac admission rates during the COVID-19 lockdown and post-lockdown period are sparse. Methods: Consecutive cardiac patients admitted to our tertiary heart center between 1 January and 30 June 2020 were included. The observation period of 6 months was analyzed in total and divided into three defined time periods: the pre-lockdown (1 January–19 March), lockdown (20 March–19 April), and post-lockdown (20 April–30 June) period. These were compared to the reference periods 2019 and 2022 using daily admission rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results: Over the observation period from 1 January to 30 June, cardiac admissions (including non-emergency and emergency) were comparable between 2019, 2020, and 2022 (n = 2889, n = 2952, n = 2956; p = 0.845). However, when compared to the reference period 2019, non-emergency admissions decreased in 2020 (1364 vs. 1663; p = 0.02), while emergency admissions significantly increased (1588 vs. 1226; p < 0.001). Further analysis of the lockdown period revealed that non-emergency admissions dropped by 82% (IRR 0.18; 95%-CI 0.14–0.24; p < 0.001) and 42% fewer invasive cardiac interventions were performed (p < 0.001), whereas the post-lockdown period showed a 52% increase of emergency admissions (IRR 1.47; 95%-CI 1.31–1.65; p < 0.001) compared to 2019. Conclusions: We demonstrate a drastic surge of emergency cardiac admissions post-COVID-19 related lockdown suggesting that patients who did not keep their non-emergency appointment had to be admitted as an emergency later on.

Background: Patients, whose non-emergency cardiac procedure was postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic, have shown signs of disease progression in the short term. Data on the long-term effects are currently lacking. Aim: To assess outcomes through 3 years following deferral. Methods: This retrospective, single-center analysis includes consecutive patients whose non-emergency cardiovascular intervention was postponed during the first COVID-19-related lockdown (March 19 to April 30, 2020). Outcomes over 36 months post-procedure were analyzed and compared to a seasonal control group undergoing non-emergency intervention in 2019 as scheduled (n = 214). The primary endpoint was a composite of emergency cardiovascular hospitalization and death. Additionally, NT-proBNP levels were analyzed. Results: The combined endpoint occurred in 60 of 178 patients (33.7%) whose non-emergency transcatheter heart valve intervention, rhythmological procedure, or left heart catheterization was postponed. Primary endpoint events did not occur more frequently in the study group during the 36-month follow-up (p = 0.402), but within the first 24 months post-procedure (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20–2.60, p = 0.003). Deferred patients affected by an event in the postprocedural 24 months had significantly higher NT-proBNP levels at the time of intervention (p < 0.001) (AUC 0.768, p = 0.003, optimum cut-off 808.5 pg/ml, sensitivity 84.2%, specificity 65.8%) and thereafter (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Deferral of non-emergency cardiovascular interventions is associated with poor outcomes up to 24 months post-procedure. Adverse effects affect patients who develop signs of acute heart failure, as indicated by NT-proBNP, prior to treatment. These findings could help improve resource allocation in times of limited capacity. Graphical

Background: Before surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), coronary status evaluation is required. The role of combined computed coronary tomography angiography (cCTA) and TAVI planning CT in this context is not yet well elucidated. This study assessed whether relevant proximal coronary disease requiring coronary revascularization can be safely detected by combined cCTA and TAVI planning CT, including CT-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) calculation in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Methods: This study analyzed patients with successful cCTA combined with TAVI planning CT using a 128-slice dual-source scanner. The detection via cCTA of relevant left main stem stenosis (>50%) or proximal coronary artery stenosis (>70%) was compared to invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Results: This study comprised 101 consecutive TAVI patients with a median age of 83 [77–86] years, a median STS score of 3.7 [2.4–6.1] and 54% of whom had known coronary artery disease. Of 15 patients with relevant coronary stenoses, 14 (93.3%) were detected with cCTA, while false positive results were found in 25 patients. Only in patients with previous percutaneous coronary stent implantation (PCI) were false positive rates (11/29) increased. In the subgroup without previous PCI, an improved classification performance of 87.5%, being mainly due to 11.1% false positive classifications, led to a negative predictive value of 98.5%. Conclusions: Combined cCTA and CT-FFR with TAVI planning CT via state-of-the-art scanners and protocols as a one-stop shop can replace routine ICA in patients prior to TAVI due to its safe detection of relevant coronary artery stenosis, although diagnostic performance of cCTA is only reduced in patients with coronary stents.