Hypertension still remains poorly controlled. Adequate BP control was achieved in 37.4% of patients and significant attributes for poor control were BMI, marital status, literacy, socioeconomic status, smoking, medication adherence, absence of side effects, number of drugs, number of years on drug therapy and co-morbid conditions.

Background It has been reported that patients attending the emergency department with other pathologies may not have received optimal medical care due to the lockdown measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a retrospective study of patients presenting with cardiovascular emergencies to four tertiary regional emergency departments in western India during the government implementation of complete lockdown. Results 25.0% of patients during the lockdown period and 17.4% of patients during the pre-lockdown period presented outside the window period (presentation after 12 hours of symptom onset) compared with only 6% during the pre-COVID period. In the pre-COVID period, 46.9% of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction underwent emergent catheterisation, while in the pre-lockdown and lockdown periods, these values were 26.1% and 18.8%, respectively. The proportion of patients treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy increased from 18.4% in the pre-COVID period to 32.3% in the post-lockdown period. Inhospital mortality for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) increased from 2.69% in the pre-COVID period to 7.27% in the post-lockdown period. There was also a significant decline in emergency admissions for non-ACS conditions, such as acute decompensated heart failure and high degree or complete atrioventricular block. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for cardiac problems and also affected the use of optimum therapy in our institutions.

The current pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has posed a great threat to people’s health worldwide, with specific implications on patients with underlying heart diseases. During this challenging period, nearly all major societies have recommended for conservative approach, even for patients with relatively stable acute cardiovascular diseases. Selection of specific antiplatelet therapy in an uncomplicated post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patient can, at times, be crucial issue in such strained circumstances. We report a case of 64-year-old male, who was taken for urgent coronary angiogram (CAG) in view of non ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Successful PCI with implantation of drug eluting stent was done for right coronary artery (RCA) and left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesions. On day 5th post-PCI, he developed acute inferior wall STEMI due to subacute stent thrombosis (ST), and despite all efforts, patient could not be saved as he didn’t receive timely intervention. Increased travel time to emergency department due to lockdown because of COVID-19 and along with extra time required for donning of personal protection equipment (PPE) and other COVID-19 related safety measures prolonged the ischemic time. Potent P2Y12 inhibitor based dual antiplatelet therapy might have prevented this subacute ST, and thus mortality, as the patient was discharged on clopidogrel after PCI. While selecting specific P2Y12 inhibitor in a post PCI patient, apart from clinical condition of patient and complexity of procedure, we should also consider current COVID-19 pandemic. Current circumstances may favour ticagrelor over other P2Y12 inhibitors in view of its potent, rapid, and reversible antiplatelet action along with its optimistic effect in pneumonia.

Background Heart failure affects almost 64 million people, with more than half of it constituting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (SGLT2i) are in the first line for HFrEF, but no head-to-head trials are available. Moreover, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) has been demonstrated as a promising prognostic marker, specifically for HFrEF, but has not been explored much. Methods This pragmatic randomised controlled trial recruits 100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) of New York Heart Association (NYHA) II–III and allocates them in a 1:1 ratio to the dapagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan groups. The primary objective is to assess the difference in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide serum levels at the end of 16 weeks. The secondary efficacy objectives are to assess GDF-15, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients will be assessed at baseline, fourth week and 16th week after randomisation. As health technology assessment practices widely differ in countries, cost assessment is a vital factor to consider. The cost needed to treat one cardiovascular event is also compared between both groups. The occurrence of safety events will also be evaluated at each follow-up point. Conclusion This pragmatic study aims to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF in real-world settings. The study aims to provide clinicians with data to make informed decisions regarding the preferred drug class. Additionally, examining the impact of ARNI and SGLT2i on GDF-15 levels could offer better insights into prognosis among patients with HFrEF. Ethics and dissemination This study involves human participants and was approved by Institutional Ethics Committee at AlIMS Jodhpur with reference number AIIMS/IEC/2023/5842 approved this study. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. The research findings will be disseminated via closed group discussions at the site of study, scientific conferences, peer-reviewed published manuscripts, and social media. Trial registration number CTRI/2023/12/060772.