Aims During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital admissions for cardiac care have declined. However, effects on mortality are unclear. Thus, we sought to evaluate the impact of the lockdown period in central Germany on overall and cardiovascular deaths. Simultaneously we looked at catheterization activities in the same region. Methods and results Data from 22 of 24 public health-authorities in central Germany were aggregated during the pandemic related lockdown period and compared to the same time period in 2019. Information on the total number of deaths and causes of death, including cardiovascular mortality, were collected. Additionally, we compared rates of hospitalization (n = 5178) for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in 26 hospitals in this area. Data on 5,984 deaths occurring between March 23, 2020 and April 26, 2020 were evaluated. In comparison to the reference non-pandemic period in 2019 (deaths: n = 5832), there was a non-significant increase in all-cause mortality of 2.6% [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99–1.06; p = 0.16]. Cardiovascular and cardiac mortality increased significantly by 7.6% (IRR 1.08, 95%-CI 1.01–1.14; p = 0.02) and by 11.8% (IRR 1.12, 95%-CI 1.05–1.19; p < 0.001), respectively. During the same period, our data revealed a drop in cardiac catherization procedures. Conclusion During the COVID-19-related lockdown a significant increase in cardiovascular mortality was observed in central Germany, whereas catherization activities were reduced. The mechanisms underlying both of these observations should be investigated further in order to better understand the effects of a pandemic-related lockdown and social-distancing restrictions on cardiovascular care and mortality. Graphic abstract

Although transradial angioplasty has been shown to have no major entry site-related complications, its clinical applicability for balloon angioplasty and stenting in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unclear. In order to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcome of transradial access for coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting during AMI, transradial angioplasty for AMI was registered on a prospective database at two European sites (A and B) with experience in the radial approach (RA); 6 Fr catheters with an inner lumen of at least 0.064" and low-profile rapid-exchange balloons were used. Primary success rates and procedural complications of 6 Fr RA were determined and compared to 6 Fr femoral approach (FA) procedures. A total of 1,224 AMI patients entered the registry. Study site A enrolled 185 RA patients (13.6% AMI) and study site B 92 RA patients (63.4%). Patient baseline demographics were similar in both study centers and showed no differences between RA and FA patients, except a more frequent use of abciximab in study site B compared to A. PTCA was successful in > 95% of both RA and FA patients. Total procedural time did not differ between RA and FA patients. Severe access site-related bleeding complications, however, were observed in FA patients only: study site A used closure devices routinely and found 2% severe bleedings; study site B used no closure device for FA patients and observed 7% severe bleedings. In selected patients and in experienced hands, transradial PTCA in AMI has a high success rate, is clinically safe, and could become an attractive alternative access site for patients being at high or even low risk for bleeding complications.

Endovascular treatment is an established therapy for thoracic aortic disease. Collapse of the endograft is a potentially fatal complication. We reviewed 16 patients with a thoracic endograft between 2001 and 2006. Medical records of the treated patients were studied. Data collected include age, gender, diagnosis, indication for endoluminal treatment, type of endograft, and time of follow up. All patients (n = 16; mean age, 61 years; range, 21-82 years) underwent computed tomography (CT) for location of the lesion and planning of the intervention. Time of follow-up with CT scan ranged from 1 to 61 months. Indications for endovascular treatment were degenerative aneurysm (n = 7; 44%), aortic dissection (n = 2; 12%), perforated aortic ulcer (n = 4; 25%), and traumatic aortic injury (n = 3; 19%). Three patients suffered from a collapse of the endograft (one patient distal, two patients proximal) between 3 and 8 days after endovascular treatment. These patients were younger (mean age, 37 +/- 25 years vs. 67 +/- 16 years; P < 0.05) and showed more oversizing (proximal, 36 +/- 19.8% vs. 29 +/- 20.7% [P > 0.05]; distal, 45 +/- 23.5% vs. 38 +/- 21.7% [P > 0.05]). Proximal collapse was corrected by placing a bare stent. In conclusion, risk factors for stent-graft collapse are a small lumen of the aorta and a small radius of the aortic arch curvature (young patients), as well as oversizing, which is an important risk factor and is described for different types of endografts and protheses (Gore TAG and Cook Zenith). Dilatation of the collapsed stent-graft is not sufficient. Following therapy implantation of a second stent or surgery is necessary in patients with a proximal endograft collapse. Distal endograft collapse can possibly be treated conservatively under close follow-up.

The clinical use of capsule endoscopy is unproblematic in patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Considering the significant benefit for patients with preoperative compared to intraoperative IABP and the absence of vascular problems after IABP insertion, the results of this study indicate a more liberal indication for IABP in high-risk patients before coronary bypass surgery.