Nilesh Pareek

Background: The relationship between ethnicity and COVID-19 is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to assess whether ethnicity has been reported in patients with COVID-19 and its relation to clinical outcomes. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO for English-language citations on ethnicity and COVID-19 (1 st December 2019-15 th May 2020). We also reviewed: COVID-19 articles in NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, surveillance data and preprint articles on COVID-19 in MedRxiv to evaluate if the association between ethnicity and clinical outcomes were reported and what they showed. PROSPERO:180654. Findings: Of 207 articles in the database search, five reported ethnicity; two reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 690 articles identified from medical journals, 12 reported ethnicity; three reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 209 preprints, 34 reported ethnicity 13 found Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals had an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and 12 reported worse clinical outcomes, including ITU admission and mortality, in BAME patients compared to White patients. Of 12 grey literature reports, seven with original data reported poorer clinical outcomes in BAME groups compared to White groups. Interpretation: Data on ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 in the published medical literature remains limited. However, emerging data from the grey literature and preprint articles suggest BAME individuals are at an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to White individuals and also worse clinical outcomes from COVID-19. Further work on the role of ethnicity in the current pandemic is of urgent public health importance.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. METHODS: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P=0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P<0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P=0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Background: Current guidelines only recommend the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) &lt;35%. However, registries of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests demonstrate that 70% to 80% of such patients have an LVEF &gt;35%. Patients with an LVEF &gt;35% also have low competing risks of death from nonsudden causes. Therefore, those at high risk of SCD may gain longevity from successful implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. We investigated whether late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance identified patients with dilated cardiomyopathy without severe LV systolic dysfunction at high risk of SCD. Methods: We prospectively investigated the association between midwall LGE and the prespecified primary composite outcome of SCD or aborted SCD among consecutive referrals with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF ≥40% to our center between January 2000 and December 2011 who did not have a preexisting indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Results: Of 399 patients (145 women, median age 50 years, median LVEF 50%, 25.3% with LGE) followed for a median of 4.6 years, 18 of 101 (17.8%) patients with LGE reached the prespecified end point, compared with 7 of 298 (2.3%) without (hazard ratio [HR], 9.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9–21.8; P &lt;0.0001). Nine patients (8.9%) with LGE compared with 6 (2.0%) without (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.8–13.5; P =0.002) died suddenly, whereas 10 patients (9.9%) with LGE compared with 1 patient (0.3%) without (HR, 34.8; 95% CI, 4.6–266.6; P &lt;0.001) had aborted SCD. After adjustment, LGE predicted the composite end point (HR, 9.3; 95% CI, 3.9–22.3; P &lt;0.0001), SCD (HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.7–13.8; P =0.003), and aborted SCD (HR, 35.9; 95% CI, 4.8–271.4; P &lt;0.001). Estimated HRs for the primary end point for patients with an LGE extent of 0% to 2.5%, 2.5% to 5%, and &gt;5% compared with those without LGE were 10.6 (95% CI, 3.9–29.4), 4.9 (95% CI, 1.3–18.9), and 11.8 (95% CI, 4.3–32.3), respectively. Conclusions: Midwall LGE identifies a group of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF ≥40% at increased risk of SCD and low risk of nonsudden death who may benefit from implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00930735.

AIMS: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) increase mortality risk from coronavirus infection (COVID-19). There are also concerns that the pandemic has affected supply and demand of acute cardiovascular care. We estimated excess mortality in specific CVDs, both 'direct', through infection, and 'indirect', through changes in healthcare. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used (i) national mortality data for England and Wales to investigate trends in non-COVID-19 and CVD excess deaths; (ii) routine data from hospitals in England (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), and China (n = 5) to assess indirect pandemic effects on referral, diagnosis, and treatment services for CVD; and (iii) population-based electronic health records from 3 862 012 individuals in England to investigate pre- and post-COVID-19 mortality for people with incident and prevalent CVD. We incorporated pre-COVID-19 risk (by age, sex, and comorbidities), estimated population COVID-19 prevalence, and estimated relative risk (RR) of mortality in those with CVD and COVID-19 compared with CVD and non-infected (RR: 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0).Mortality data suggest indirect effects on CVD will be delayed rather than contemporaneous (peak RR 1.14). CVD service activity decreased by 60-100% compared with pre-pandemic levels in eight hospitals across China, Italy, and England. In China, activity remained below pre-COVID-19 levels for 2-3 months even after easing lockdown and is still reduced in Italy and England. For total CVD (incident and prevalent), at 10% COVID-19 prevalence, we estimated direct impact of 31 205 and 62 410 excess deaths in England (RR 1.5 and 2.0, respectively), and indirect effect of 49 932 to 99 865 deaths. CONCLUSION: Supply and demand for CVD services have dramatically reduced across countries with potential for substantial, but avoidable, excess mortality during and after the pandemic.