Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has high infectivity and causes extensive morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular disease is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in COVID-19, but baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in particular has not been evaluated thoroughly in this context. Methods We analyzed patients in our state's largest health system who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 20 and May 15, 2020. Inclusion required an available echocardiogram within one year prior to diagnosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. LVEF was analyzed both as a continuous variable and using a cutoff of 40%. Results Among 396 patients (67±16 years, 191 [48%] male, 235 [59%] Black, 59 [15%] LVEF ≤40%), 289 (73%) required hospital admission, and 116 (29%) died during 85±63 days of follow-up. Echocardiograms, performed a median of 57 (IQR 11-122) days prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, showed a similar distribution of LVEF between survivors and decedents (p=0.84). Receiver operator characteristic analysis revealed no predictive ability of LVEF for mortality, and there was no difference in survival among those with LVEF ≤40% vs. >40% (p=0.49). Multivariable analysis did not change these relationships. Similarly, there was no difference in LVEF based on whether the patient required hospital admission (56±13 vs. 55±13, p=0.38), and patients with a depressed LVEF did not require admission more frequently than their preserved-LVEF peers (p=0.87). A premorbid history of dyspnea consistent with symptomatic heart failure was not associated with mortality (p=0.74). Conclusions Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, pre-COVID-19 LVEF was not a risk factor for death or hospitalization.

Background Class 1C antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are effective first‐line agents for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. However, these agents commonly are avoided in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD), due to known increased risk in the postmyocardial infarction population. Whether 1C AADs are safe in patients with CAD but without clinical ischemia or infarct is unknown. Reduced coronary flow capacity (CFC) on positron emission tomography (PET) reliably identifies myocardial regions supplied by vessels with CAD causing flow limitation. Objective To assess whether treatment with 1C AADs increases mortality in patients without known CAD but with CFC indicating significantly reduced coronary blood flow. Methods In this pilot study, we compared patients with AF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% who were treated with 1C AADs to age‐matched AF patients without 1C AAD treatment. No patient had clinically evident CAD (ie, reversible perfusion defect, known ≥70% epicardial lesion, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or myocardial infarction). All patients had PET‐based quantification of stress myocardial blood flow and CFC. Death was assessed by clinical follow‐up and social security death index search. Results A total of 78 patients with 1C AAD exposure were matched to 78 controls. Over a mean follow‐up of 2.0 years, the groups had similar survival (P = .54). Among patients with CFC indicating the presence of occult CAD (ie, reduced CFC involving ≥50% of myocardium), 1C‐treated patients had survival similar to (P = .44) those not treated with 1C agents. Conclusions In a limited population of AF patients with preserved left ventricle function and PET‐CFC indicating occult CAD, treatment with 1C AADs appears not to increase mortality. A larger study would be required to confidently assess the safety of these drugs in this context.

Introduction: Guidelines indicate primary-prevention implantable cardioverterdefibrillators (ICDs) for most patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%. Some patients' LVEFs improve during the life of their first ICD. In patients with recovered LVEF who never received appropriate ICD therapy, the utility of generator replacement upon battery depletion remains unclear. Here, we evaluate ICD therapy based on LVEF at the time of generator change, to educate shared decision-making regarding whether to replace the depleted ICD. Methods:We followed patients with a primary-prevention ICD who underwent generator change. Patients who received appropriate ICD therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) before generator change were excluded. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapy, adjusted for the competing risk of death.Results: Among 951 generator changes, 423 met inclusion criteria. During 3.4 ± 2.2 years follow-up, 78 (18%) received appropriate therapy for VT/VF. Compared to patients with recovered LVEF > 35% (n = 161 [38%]), those with LVEF ≤ 35% (n = 262 [62%]) were more likely to require ICD therapy (p = .002; Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year event rates: 12.7% vs. 25.0%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed the optimal LVEF cutoff for VT/VF prediction to be 45%, the use of which further improved risk stratification (p < .001), with Fine-Gray adjusted 5-year rates 6.2% versus 25.1%. Conclusion:Following ICD generator change, patients with primary-prevention ICDs and recovered LVEF have significantly lower risk of subsequent ventricular arrhythmias compared to those with persistent LVEF depression. Risk stratification at LVEF 45% offers significant additional negative predictive value over a 35%

No abstract

No abstract