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.

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.

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.

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.

AIMS CONCERT-HF is an NHLBI-sponsored, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial designed to determine whether treatment with autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), given alone or in combination, is feasible, safe, and beneficial in patients with heart failure (HF) caused by ischaemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to transendocardial injection of MSCs combined with CPCs, MSCs alone, CPCs alone, or placebo, and followed for 12 months. Seven centres enrolled 125 participants with left ventricular ejection fraction of 28.6 ± 6.1% and scar size 19.4 ± 5.8%, in New York Heart Association class II or III. The proportion of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was significantly decreased by CPCs alone (-22% vs. placebo, P = 0.043). Quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score) was significantly improved by MSCs alone (P = 0.050) and MSCs + CPCs (P = 0.023) vs. placebo. Left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular volumes, scar size, 6-min walking distance, and peak oxygen consumption did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSIONS This is the first multicentre trial assessing CPCs and a combination of two cell types from different tissues in HF patients. The results show that treatment is safe and feasible. Even with maximal guideline-directed therapy, both CPCs and MSCs were associated with improved clinical outcomes (MACE and quality of life, respectively) in ischaemic HF without affecting left ventricular function or structure, suggesting possible systemic or paracrine cellular mechanisms. Combining MSCs with CPCs was associated with improvement in both these outcomes. These results suggest potential important beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs and support further investigation in HF patients.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted many aspects of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care, including timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Objectives The goal of the NACMI (North American COVID-19 and STEMI) registry is to describe demographic characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with STEMI. Methods A prospective, ongoing observational registry was created under the guidance of 3 cardiology societies. STEMI patients with confirmed COVID+ (group 1) or suspected (person under investigation [PUI]) (group 2) COVID-19 infection were included. A group of age- and sex-matched STEMI patients (matched to COVID+ patients in a 2:1 ratio) treated in the pre-COVID era (2015 to 2019) serves as the control group for comparison of treatment strategies and outcomes (group 3). The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or repeat unplanned revascularization. Results As of December 6, 2020, 1,185 patients were included in the NACMI registry (230 COVID+ patients, 495 PUIs, and 460 control patients). COVID+ patients were more likely to have minority ethnicity (Hispanic 23%, Black 24%) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (46%) (all p, Central Illustration

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.

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.

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. Background The role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain. Methods Two randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42019143120 ). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale. Results Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p Conclusions Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.

Background Anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) may be irreversible with a poor prognosis, disproportionately affecting women and young adults. Administration of allogeneic bone marr...

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the U.S. population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on 1) the varied clinical presentations; 2) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; 3) role of the Emergency Department, Emergency Medical System and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory; and 4) Regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary PCI remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

Aims Cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs) are cardiac progenitor cells that exhibit disease-modifying bioactivity in various models of cardiomyopathy and in previous clinical studies of acute myocardial infarction (MI), dilated cardiomyopathy, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of intracoronary administration of allogeneic CDCs in the multicentre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, intracoronary ALLogeneic heart STem cells to Achieve myocardial Regeneration (ALLSTAR) trial. Methods and results We enrolled patients 4 weeks to 12 months after MI, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤45% and LV scar size ≥15% of LV mass by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed when 6-month MRI data were available. The trial was subsequently stopped due to the low probability of detecting a significant treatment effect of CDCs based on the primary endpoint. Patients were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive CDCs or placebo in the infarct-related artery by stop-flow technique. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence, during 1-month post-intracoronary infusion, of acute myocarditis attributable to allogeneic CDCs, ventricular tachycardia- or ventricular fibrillation-related death, sudden unexpected death, or a major adverse cardiac event (death or hospitalization for heart failure or non-fatal MI or need for left ventricular assist device or heart transplant). The primary efficacy endpoint was the relative percentage change in infarct size at 12 months post-infusion as assessed by contrast-enhanced cardiac MRI. We randomly allocated 142 eligible patients of whom 134 were treated (90 to the CDC group and 44 to the placebo group). The mean baseline LVEF was 40% and the mean scar size was 22% of LV mass. No primary safety endpoint events occurred. There was no difference in the percentage change from baseline in scar size (P = 0.51) between CDCs and placebo groups at 6 months. Compared with placebo, there were significant reductions in LV end-diastolic volume (P = 0.02), LV end-systolic volume (P = 0.02), and N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (P = 0.02) at 6 months in CDC-treated patients. Conclusion Intracoronary infusion of allogeneic CDCs in patients with post-MI LV dysfunction was safe but did not reduce scar size relative to placebo at 6 months. Nevertheless, the reductions in LV volumes and NT-proBNP reveal disease-modifying bioactivity of CDCs. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01458405.

The highly anticipated ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the largest study to-date conducted to assess for the incremental clinical benefits of an initial invasive management strategy over an initial medical therapy

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began reimbursement for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) in January 2020. The ability to perform PCI in an ASC has been made possible due to the outcomes data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials supporting same day discharge (SDD) after PCI. In appropriately selected patients for outpatient PCI, clinical outcomes for SDD or routine overnight observation are comparable without any difference in short-term or long-term adverse events. Furthermore, a potential for lower cost of care without a compromise in clinical outcomes exists. These studies provide the framework and justification for performing PCI in an ASC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) supported this coverage decision provided the quality and safety standards for PCI in an ASC were equivalent to the hospital setting. The current position paper is written to provide guidance for starting a PCI program in an ASC with an emphasis on maintaining quality standards. Regulatory requirements and appropriate standards for the facility, staff and physicians are delineated. The consensus document identified appropriate patients for consideration of PCI in an ASC. The key components of an ongoing quality assurance program are defined and the ethical issues relevant to PCI in an ASC are reviewed.

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the US population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on (a) varied clinical presentations; (b) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; (c) the roles of the emergency department, emergency medical system, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL); and (4) regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely manner, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI-capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed an enormous strain on the health care systems of the nations where it has spread widely, with specific implications of the disease on practice in the catheterization laboratory. These implications include how we might modify practice for standard

This study sought to compare the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with and without cardiogenic shock (CS) or cardiac arrest (CA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Patients with STEMI complicated by CS or CA are underrepresented in STEMI registries.Consecutive patients with STEMI or new left bundle branch block within 24 h of symptom onset were included in a regional STEMI program comprising a PCI center (Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital), 11 hospitals 60 miles from PCI center (zone 1), and 19 hospitals 60 to 210 miles from PCI center (zone 2). No patients were excluded. Patients were stratified based on the presence (+) or absence (-) of CS or CA before PCI. Patients with CA were further classified based on initial rhythm. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 5-year mortality.Between March 2003 and December 2014, 4,511 STEMI patients were included in the regional program, including 398 (9%) with CS and 499 (11%) with CA. Hospital mortality was: CS+ and CA+, 44%; CS+ and CA-, 23%; CS- and CA+, 19%; and CS- and CA-, 2% (p 0.001). The 5-year survival probability for CS+ and CA+ patients was 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.76) and 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 0.93), respectively (p 0.01). Compared with patients with shockable rhythms, CA patients with nonshockable rhythms had significantly lower odds of survival at hospital discharge and at 5 years (both p 0.001).The combination of CS and CA significantly increases short-term mortality in patients with STEMI. After 5 years of follow-up, CS patients remained at high risk of fatal events, whereas the prognosis of CA patients was determined by initial rhythm at presentation.

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.