Aims Patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) had worse in‐hospital outcomes during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, their long‐term outcomes are unknown. We describe long‐term outcomes among patients who survived to hospital discharge compared with patients hospitalized in 2019 from two referral centers in London during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods and results In total, 512 patients who survived their hospitalization for acute HF in two South London referral centers between 7 January and 14 June 2020 were included in the study and compared with 725 patients from the corresponding period in 2019. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. The demographic characteristics of patients admitted in 2020 were similar to the 2019 cohort. Median (IQR) follow‐up was 622 (348–691) days. All‐cause mortality after discharge remained significantly higher for patients admitted in 2020 compared with the equivalent period in 2019 ( P < 0.01), which may relate to observed differences in place of care with fewer patients being managed on specialist cardiology wards during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conclusion Hospitalization for HF during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic was associated with higher all‐cause mortality among patients who survived to discharge. Further studies are necessary to identify predictors of these adverse outcomes to improve outpatient management during a critical period in the management of acute HF.

History of Ophiocordyceps sinensisCordyceps as a health supplement has been used for many centuries. O. sinensis is a naturally existent fungus-caterpillar complex that has been used in Chinese and Tibetan traditional medicine since the 15 th century. [3] O. sinensis is highly precious because it is harvested from remote locations of about 3800 m above sea level in Tibet, Qinghai, Yunnan, Sichuan, and Gansu provinces. Due to the limited quantity

Aims Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. Methods and results Data on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all‐cause mortality during follow‐up. The secondary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in‐hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co‐morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate‐to‐severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long‐term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09–0.43, P < 0.001). Conclusions In‐hospital cardiology specialist input has no long‐term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in‐hospital mortality.

Aims Specialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated heart failure (HF). However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown. Methods Data on patients hospitalised with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality during follow-up. The secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 1,413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n=322) did not receive in-hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs 79%, p=0.03) and respiratory comorbidities (25% vs 31%, p=0.02) compared to those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (NYHA III/IV 83% vs 75% respectively, p=0.003; moderate-to-severe peripheral oedema 65% vs 54%, p&lt;0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs 86%, p=0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs 4 days, p&lt;0.001). Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (HR 0.19, CI 0.09-0.43, p&lt;0.001). Conclusion In-hospital cardiology specialist input has no long-term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but it is independently associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

No abstract