Search

The onset and widespread dissemination of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in late 2019 impacted the world in a way not seen since the 1918 H1N1 pandemic, colloquially known as the Spanish Flu. Much like the Spanish Flu, which was observed to disproportionately impact young adults, it became clear in the early days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that certain groups appeared to be at higher risk for severe illness once infected. One such group that immediately came to the forefront and garnered international attention was patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Here, we examine the available literature describing the interaction of COVID-19 with a myriad of cardiovascular conditions and diseases, paying particular attention to patients diagnosed with arrythmias, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. We further discuss the association of acute COVID-19 with de novo cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction due to coronary thrombosis, myocarditis, and new onset arrhythmias. We will evaluate various biochemical theories to explain these findings, including possible mechanisms of direct myocardial injury caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 virus at the cellular level. Finally, we will discuss the strategies employed by numerous groups and governing bodies within the cardiovascular disease community to address the unprecedented challenges posed to the care of our most vulnerable patients, including heart transplant recipients, end-stage heart failure patients, and patients suffering from acute coronary syndromes, during the early days and height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved rapidly to overburden health care organizations around the world and has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality. Many countries have reported a substantial and rapid reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention. The reasons for such abrupt changes in health care delivery are multifactorial and include lockdowns, reduction in outpatient services, reluctance to seek medical attention for fear of contracting the virus, and restrictive visitation policies adopted during the pandemic. This review discusses the impact of COVID-19 on important aspects of acute MI care.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and mortality. However, little is known about the frequency of use and clinical impact of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in these patients. We sought to define patterns of MCS utilization, patient characteristics, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with STEMI. The NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) is an ongoing prospective, observational registry of patients with COVID-19 positive (COVID-19+) with STEMI with a contemporary control group of persons under investigation who subsequently tested negative for COVID-19 (COVID-19-). We compared the baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19+ and patients with COVID-19- according to the use of MCS. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, recurrent MI, and repeat unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,379 patients (586 COVID-19+ and 793 COVID-19-) enrolled in the NACMI registry between January 2020 and November 2021 were included in this analysis; overall, MCS use was 12.3% (12.1% [n = 71] COVID-19+/MCS positive [MCS+] vs 12.4% [n = 98] COVID-19-/MCS+). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention was similar between the groups (84% vs 78%; p = 0.404). Intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used MCS device in both groups (53% in COVID-19+/MCS+ and 75% in COVID-19-/MCS+). The primary outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19+/MCS+ patients (60% vs 30%; p = 0.001) because of very high in-hospital mortality (59% vs 28%; p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with COVID-19+ with STEMI requiring MCS have very high in-hospital mortality, likely related to the significantly higher pulmonary involvement compared with patients with COVID-19- with STEMI requiring MCS.

Recent evidence suggest that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may improve survival rates for nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Eligibility criteria for ECPR are often based on patient age, clinical variables, and facility capabilities. Expanding access to ECPR across the U.S. requires a better understanding of how these factors interact with transport time to ECPR centers.We constructed a Geographic Information System (GIS) model to estimate the number of ECPR candidates in the U.S. We utilized a Resuscitation Outcome Consortium (ROC) database to model time-dependent rates of ECPR eligibility and the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) registry to determine the total number of OHCA patients who meet pre-specified ECPR criteria within designated transportation times. The combined model was used to estimate the total number of ECPR candidates.There were 588,203 OHCA patients in the CARES registry from 2013 to 2020. After applying clinical eligibility criteria, 22,104 (3.76%) OHCA patients were deemed eligible for ECPR. The rate of ROSC increased with longer resuscitation time, which resulted in fewer ECPR candidates. The proportion of OHCA patients eligible for ECPR increased with older age cutoffs. Only 1.68% (9,889/588,203) of OHCA patients in the U.S. were eligible for ECPR based on a 45-minute transportation time to an ECMO-ready center model.Less than 2% of OHCA patients are eligible for ECPR in the U.S. GIS models can identify the impact of clinical criteria, transportation time, and hospital capabilities on ECPR eligibility to inform future implementation strategies.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is often treated conservatively due to revascularization risks. Yet, an important number of SCAD patients have high acuity characteristics necessitating revascularization, with uncertain long-term outcomes.Document revascularization utilization and long-term outcomes in high acuity SCAD.Prospective/retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) due to first SCAD event presenting directly to the Minneapolis Heart Institute 2002-2021, median follow-up 3.8 years.Among 139 patients (age 49 ± 12 years, 96% female), revascularization was performed in 60 (43%), utilizing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 56, successful in 80%) or coronary artery bypass graft (n = 4). In the entire cohort, 90 (65%) unique patients had one or more high acuity characteristic: ST-elevation (38%), proximal dissection (38%), cardiogenic shock (6.5%), cardiac arrest (9.4%), left main dissection (6.5%), peripartum dissection (7.2%). High acuity patients accounted for 51 of 60 (85%) revascularizations. Revascularization rates were: ST-elevation (60%), proximal dissection (62%), cardiogenic shock (89%), cardiac arrest (62%), left main dissection (100%), peripartum dissection (70%). Survival was 97% (revascularized) vs 100% (nonrevascularized); p = 0.2. Adverse outcomes (revascularized vs. nonrevascularized) included recurrent AMI:16.7% versus 8.9%; p = 0.2, SCAD recurrence: 13.3% versus 6.3%; p = 0.1, stroke: 5% versus 2.5%; p = 0.44, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: 6.7% versus 6.3%; p 0.9. Reintervention was necessary in 21% of PCI-treated patients.High-acuity characteristics were present in nearly two-thirds of this SCAD cohort; the vast majority of revascularizations were performed in high-acuity patients. Despite high acuity, long-term survival was favorable in revascularized patients.

Refractory angina is defined as chest pain caused by coronary ischemia in patients on maximal medical therapy and not amenable to revascularization despite advanced coronary artery disease. The long term prognosis has improved with optimal medical therapy including risk factor modification. Still, patients are left with major impairment in quality of life and have high resource utilization with limited treatment options. We review the novel invasive and non-invasive therapies under investigation for refractory angina.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly contagious pathogen resulting in the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic with direct impact on cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) operations. Initially, major challenges in limiting the spread of aerosolized pathogens existed until protocols were implemented to limit infectivity to staff and patients. COVID-19 increases the risk of myocardial infarctions and cardiogenic shock requiring acute management in the CCL. In this review, we specify best practices in the CCL for the management of infected patients in the preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure environments harmonizing available evidence, recommendations from international heart associations, and consensus opinion.

Heterogeneity in diagnostic criteria and provocation protocols has posed challenges in understanding the safety of coronary provocation testing with intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) for the contemporary diagnosis of epicardial and microvascular spasm.We examined the safety of testing and subgroup differences in procedural risks based on ethnicity, diagnostic criteria, and provocation protocols.PubMed and Embase were searched in November 2021 to identify original articles reporting procedural complications associated with intracoronary ACh administration. The primary outcome was the pooled estimate of the incidence of major complications including death, myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, and shock.A total of 16 studies with 12,585 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled estimate of the incidence of major complications was 0.5% (95% CI: 0.0%-1.3%) without any reports of death. Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that the pooled incidence of major complications was significantly higher in the studies that followed the contemporary diagnosis criteria for epicardial spasm defined as ≥90% diameter reduction (1.0%; 95% CI: 0.3%-2.0%) but significantly lower in Western populations (0.0%; 95% CI: 0.0%-0.45%). The rate of positive epicardial spasm and the incidence of major complications were similar between provocation protocols using the maximum ACh doses of 100 μg and 200 μg.Intracoronary ACh administration for the contemporary diagnosis of epicardial and microvascular spasm is a safe procedure. Moreover, excellent safety records are observed in Western populations primarily presenting with myocardial ischemia and/or infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries. This study will help standardize ACh testing to improve clinical diagnosis and ensure procedural safety.

We previously reported high in-hospital mortality for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with COVID-19 treated in the early phase of the pandemic.The purpose of this study was to describe trends of COVID-19 patients with STEMI during the course of the pandemic.The NACMI (North American COVID-19 STEMI) registry is a prospective, investigator-initiated, multicenter, observational registry of hospitalized STEMI patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection in North America. We compared trends in clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients treated in the first year of the pandemic (January 2020 to December 2020) vs those treated in the second year (January 2021 to December 2021).A total of 586 COVID-19-positive patients with STEMI were included in the present analysis; 227 treated in Y2020 and 359 treated in Y2021. Patients' characteristics changed over time. Relative to Y2020, the proportion of Caucasian patients was higher (58% vs 39%; P 0.001), patients presented more frequently with typical ischemic symptoms (59% vs 51%; P = 0.04), and patients were less likely to have shock pre-PCI (13% vs 18%; P = 0.07) or pulmonary manifestations (33% vs. 47%; P = 0.001) in Y2021. In-hospital mortality decreased from 33% (Y2020) to 23% (Y2021) (P = 0.008). In Y2021, none of the 22 vaccinated patients expired in hospital, whereas in-hospital death was recorded in 37 (22%) unvaccinated patients (P = 0.009).Significant changes have occurred in the clinical characteristics and outcomes of STEMI patients with COVID-19 infection during the course of the pandemic.

BackgroundThe prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronaries (STE-MINOCA) is largely unknown.MethodsThe objective of this study is to evaluate the prevalence, characteristics, and 5-year mortality of patients with STE-MINOCA compared to STEMI with coronary artery obstruction (STEMI-Obstruction) using a multicenter cohort of consecutive STEMI patients at 3 regional Midwest STEMI programs from 2003 to 2020. STE-MINOCA was defined based on (1) coronary stenosis < 60% by visual estimation, (2) ischemia with elevated troponin, and (3) no alternative diagnosis. STE-MINOCA was further classified based on American Heart Association (AHA) definition as AHA STE-MINOCA and AHA STE-MINOCA Mimicker.Results8,566 STEMI patients, including 420 (4.9%) STE-MINOCA (26.9% AHA STE-MINOCA and 73.1% AHA STE-MINOCA Mimicker) were followed for a median of 7.1 years. Compared to STEMI-Obstruction, STE-MINOCA were younger, more often female, had fewer cardiovascular risk factors, and were less likely to be discharged on cardiac medications. At five years, mortality was higher in STE-MINOCA compared with STEMI-Obstruction (18% vs. 15%, p=0.033). In propensity score-matched analysis, STE-MINOCA had a 1.4-fold (95% CI: 1.04-1.89, p=0.028) higher risk of 5-year all-cause mortality compared with STEMI-Obstruction. Furthermore, 5-year mortality risk was significantly higher in AHA STE-MINOCA Mimicker (19% vs. 15%, p=0.043) but similar in AHA STE-MINOCA (17% vs. 15%, p=0.42) compared with STEMI-Obstruction.ConclusionsIn this large multicenter STEMI cohort, nearly 5% of patients presented with STE-MINOCA. At five years, mortality approached 20% among patients with STE-MINOCA. Despite the lower risk profile, STE-MINOCA patients were at 40% higher risk of 5-year all-cause mortality compared with STEMI-Obstruction. Additionally, 5-year all-cause mortality risk was higher in AHA STE-MINOCA Mimicker but similar in AHA STE-MINOCA compared to STEMI-Obstruction.

Background Diabetes mellitus and high platelet reactivity (HPR) on clopidogrel are both associated with increased risk of ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention, but whether the HPR‐associated risk of adverse ischemic events differs by diabetes mellitus status is unknown. Methods and Results ADAPT‐DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug‐Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter registry of patients treated with coronary drug‐eluting stents. HPR was defined as P2Y12 reaction units >208 by the VerifyNow point‐of‐care assay. Cox multivariable analysis was used to assess whether HPR‐associated risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) varied for patients with insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM), non–ITDM, and no diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus and HPR were included in an interaction analysis. Of 8582 patients enrolled, 2429 (28.3%) had diabetes mellitus, of whom 998 (41.1%) had ITDM. Mean P2Y12 reaction units were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus, and HPR was more frequent in patients with diabetes mellitus. HPR was associated with consistently increased 2‐year rates of MACE in patients with and without diabetes mellitus ( P interaction =0.36). A significant interaction was present between HPR and non–insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus versus ITDM for 2‐year MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for non–ITDM, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.39–3.73] versus adjusted HR for ITDM, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70–1.50]; P interaction =0.01). Conclusions HPR was more common in patients with diabetes mellitus and was associated with an increased risk of MACE in both patients with and without diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes mellitus, a more pronounced effect of HPR on MACE was present in lower‐risk non–ITDM patients than in higher‐risk patients with ITDM. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00638794 ; Unique identifier: NCT00638794. ADAPT‐DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug‐Eluting Stents).

Background Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), although the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile. We evaluated if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in patients with different thrombotic risk profiles. Methods PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Patients were defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical and a procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis and with multivariable Cox regression. Results Among 16,065 patients, 4,293 were defined at high and 11,772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients receiving prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. High thrombotic risk patients had increased rates of ischemic and bleeding events at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted 1-year risk of MACE (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), irrespective of their thrombotic risk (pinteraction =0.32). Stratifying the study population by number of risk factors there was a significant interaction (pinteraction =0.026) for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel among patients with ≤1 thrombotic risk factor. The risk of clinically significant bleeding was similar in patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel. Conclusions Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events at 1 year. Prasugrel, mainly reserved to patients with less comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel.

Fragmentation of healthcare systems through limited cross-speciality communication and intermittent, intervention-based care, without insight into follow-up and compliance, results in poor patient experiences and potentially contributes to suboptimal outcomes. Data-driven tools and novel technologies have the capability to address these shortcomings, but insights from all stakeholders in the care continuum remain lacking. A structured online questionnaire was given to respondents (n = 1432) in nine global geographies to investigate attitudes to the use of data and novel technologies in the management of vascular disease. Patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (n = 961), physicians responsible for their care (n = 345), and administrators/healthcare leaders with responsibility for commissioning/procuring cardiovascular services (n = 126) were included. Narrative themes arising from the survey included patients’ desire for more personalized healthcare, shared decision-making, and improved communication. Patients, administrators, and physicians perceived and experienced deficiencies in continuity of care, and all acknowledged the potential for data-driven techniques and novel technologies to address some of these shortcomings. Further, physicians and administrators saw the ‘upstream’ segment of the care journey—before diagnosis, at point of diagnosis, and when determining treatment—as key to enabling tangible improvements in patient experience and outcomes. Finally, despite acceptance that data sharing is critical to the success of such interventions, there remains persistent issues related to trust and transparency. The current fragmented care continuum could be improved and streamlined through the adoption of advanced data analytics and novel technologies, including diagnostic and monitoring techniques. Such an approach could enable the refocusing of healthcare from intermittent contacts and intervention-only focus to a more holistic patient view.

To assess the characteristics and prognosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, presenting between 12 and 24 h after symptom onset, in contemporary regional STEMI systems of care in the United States.Previous observational studies have been inconsistent regarding the benefit of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with conservative management for late-presenting STEMI patients and the majority of randomized trials are from the fibrinolytic era.Using a two-center registry-based cohort from March 2003 to December 2020, we evaluated the frequency, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of STEMI patients, stratified by symptom onset to balloon time:3, 3-6, 6-12, and 12-24 h (late presenters).Among 5427 STEMI patients with available symptom onset time, 6.2% were late presenters, which increased to 11% during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic. As symptom onset to balloon time increased, patients were more likely to be older, female, and have a history of hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Late presenters with an identifiable culprit lesion were less likely to be revascularized with PCI (96%, 96%, 95%, and 92%; p for trend = 0.004) and had a longer median door-to-balloon time (82, 109, 107, and 117 min; p for trend 0.001). In-hospital and 1-year death risks were comparable between late and earlier presenters.Despite the unfavorable risk profile and longer door-to-balloon time, clinical outcomes of late presenters were similar to those presenting within 12 h of symptom onset.

Background Persistence to P2Y12 inhibitors after myocardial infarction (MI) remains low. Out‐of‐pocket cost is cited as a factor affecting medication compliance. We examined whether a copayment intervention affected 1‐year persistence to P2Y12 inhibitors and clinical outcomes. Methods and Results In an analysis of ARTEMIS (Affordability and Real‐World Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness After Myocardial Infarction Study), patients with MI discharged on a P2Y12 inhibitor were stratified by baseline out‐of‐pocket medication burden: low ($0–$49 per month), intermediate ($50–$149 per month), and high (≥$150 per month). The impact of the voucher intervention on 1‐year P2Y12 inhibitor persistence was examined using a logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations. We assessed the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events among the groups using a Kaplan–Meier estimator. Among 7351 MI‐treated patients at 282 hospitals, 54.2% patients were in the low copay group, 32.0% in the middle copay group, and 13.8% in the high copay group. Patients in higher copay groups were more likely to have a history of prior MI, heart failure, and diabetes compared with the low copay group (all P P interaction=0.42). Patients in the high copay group without a voucher had similar risk of 1‐year major adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients in the high copay group with a voucher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.66–1.21]). Conclusions Medication copayment vouchers were associated with higher medication persistence at 1 year following an MI, regardless of out‐of‐pocket medication burden. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02406677.

Patients with STEMI ( n = 385) had cardiac MRIs 2 to 3 days following reperfusion with primary PCI to determine the relationship between myocardial edema, LV mass, and MVO. We observed that MVO increased linearly with LV mass and that myocardial edema measured by T2-imaging also increased linearly with LV mass. Patients with MVO had greater edema and LVEDP than subjects without MVO. These findings suggest that myocardial edema which arises from ischemia-reperfusion injury may result in extravascular compression of the microcirculation manifested as MVO on cardiac MRI.

Despite aggressive care, patients with cardiopulmonary failure and COVID-19 experience unacceptably high mortality rates. The use of mechanical circulatory support devices in this population offers potential benefits but confers significant morbidity and novel challenges for the clinician. Thoughtful application of this complex technology is of the utmost importance and should be done in a multidisciplinary fashion by teams familiar with mechanical support devices and aware of the particular challenges provided by this complex patient population.

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients.

In-hospital mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is higher in those with COVID-19 than in those without COVID-19. The factors that predispose to this mortality rate and their relative contribution are poorly understood. This study developed a risk score inclusive of clinical variables to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 and STEMI.Baseline demographic, clinical, and procedural data from patients in the North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction registry were extracted. Univariable logistic regression was performed using candidate predictor variables, and multivariable logistic regression was performed using backward stepwise selection to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Independent predictors were assigned a weighted integer, with the sum of the integers yielding the total risk score for each patient.In-hospital mortality occurred in 118 of 425 (28%) patients. Eight variables present at the time of STEMI diagnosis (respiratory rate of35 breaths/min, cardiogenic shock, oxygen saturation of93%, age of55 ​years, infiltrates on chest x-ray, kidney disease, diabetes, and dyspnea) were assigned a weighted integer. In-hospital mortality increased exponentially with increasing integer risk score (Cochran-Armitage χThe risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 and STEMI can be accurately predicted and discriminated using readily available clinical information.

Women with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) had worse outcomes than men prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although concomitant COVID-19 infection increases mortality risk in STEMI patients, no studies have evaluated sex differences in this context.The North American COVID-19 STEMI registry is a prospective, multicenter registry of hospitalized STEMI patients with COVID-19 infection. We compared sex differences in clinical characteristics, presentation, management strategies, and in-hospital mortality.Among 585 patients with STEMI and COVID-19 infection, 154 (26.3%) were women. Compared to men, women were significantly older, had a higher prevalence of diabetes and stroke/transient ischemic attack, and were more likely to be on statins on presentation. Men more frequently presented with chest pain, whereas women presented with dyspnea. Women more often had STEMI without an identified culprit lesion than men (33% vs 18%,In patients presenting with STEMI in the context of COVID-19, the in-hospital mortality rate was 30% and similar for men and women. Lack of an identifiable culprit lesion was common in the setting of COVID-19 for both sexes but more likely in women (1/3 of women vs 1/5 of men). Evaluation of specific underlying etiologies is underway to better define the full impact of COVID-19 on STEMI outcomes and better understand the observed sex differences.

We discuss the role of observational studies and cardiac registries during the COVID-19 pandemic. We focus on published cardiac registries and highlight contributions to the field that have had clinical implications.We included observational studies of COVID-19 patients published in peer-reviewed medical journals with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, defined study design, and primary outcomes. A PubMed and MEDLINE literature review results in 437 articles, of which 52 include patients with COVID-19 with cardiac endpoints. From July 2020 to December 2021, the average time from last data collected to publication was 8.9 ± 4.1 months, with an increasing trend over time (R = 0.9444, p 0.0001). Of the 52 articles that met our inclusion criteria, we summarize main findings of 4 manuscripts on stroke, 14 on acute coronary syndrome, 4 on cardiac arrest, 7 on heart failure, 7 on venous thromboembolism, 5 on dysrhythmia, and 11 on different populations at risk for cardiovascular. Registries are cost effective, not disruptive to essential health services, and can be rapidly disseminated with short intervals between last data point collected and publication. In less than 2 years, cardiac registries have filled important gaps in knowledge and informed the care of COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular conditions.