Search

Introduction The impact of Covid-19 on the survival of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains to be defined. Methods Consecutive patients presenting with ACS at 18 Centers in Northern-Italy during the Covid-19 outbreak were included. In-hospital all-cause death was the primary outcome. In-hospital cardiovascular death along with mechanical and electrical complications were the secondary ones. A case period (February 20, 2020-May 3, 2020) was compared vs. same-year (January 1–February 19, 2020) and previous-year control periods (February 20–May 3, 2019). ACS patients with Covid-19 were further compared with those without. Results Among 779 ACS patients admitted during the case period, 67 (8.6%) tested positive for Covid-19. In-hospital all-cause mortality was significantly higher during the case period compared to the control periods (6.4% vs. 3.5% vs. 4.4% respectively; p 0.026), but similar after excluding patients with COVID-19 (4.5% vs. 3.5% vs. 4.4%; p 0.73). Cardiovascular mortality was similar between the study groups. After multivariable adjustment, admission for ACS during the COVID-19 outbreak had no impact on in-hospital mortality. In the case period, patients with concomitant ACS and Covid-19 experienced significantly higher in-hospital mortality (25% vs. 5%, p Conclusion ACS patients presenting during the Covid-19 pandemic experienced increased all-cause mortality, driven by Covid-19 positive status due to higher rates of cardiogenic shock and sustained ventricular tachycardia. No differences in cardiovascular mortality compared to non-pandemic scenarios were reported.

Background: The prevalence and outcome of patients with cancer that experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have to be determined. Methods and results: The BleeMACS project is a multicentre observational registry enrolling patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention worldwide in 15 hospitals. The primary endpoint was a composite event of death and re-infarction after one year of follow-up. Bleedings were the secondary endpoint. 15,401 patients were enrolled, 926 (6.4%) in the cancer group and 14,475 (93.6%) in the group of patients without cancer. Patients with cancer were older (70.8±10.3 vs. 62.8±12.1 years, PConclusion: Cancer has a non-negligible prevalence in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, with a major risk of cardiovascular events and bleedings. Moreover, these patients are often undertreated from clinical despite medical therapy seems to be protective. Registration:The BleeMACS project (NCT02466854).

Introduction Different devices have been released for closure of femoral vascular access after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas evidence about their efficacy and safety when compared with manual compression or head to head is lacking, especially across different diameters of sheaths, age and sex. Results A total of 30 studies were included in the analysis. Manual compression was evaluated as the control group in all of the included studies (5620 patients), Angioseal in 15 studies (17-29) (1812 patients), Exoseal in two studies (30-31) (1773 patients), Perclose in six (29, 32-37) (849 patients), Vasoseal in eight (36, 38-43) (699 patients), DUETT in one study (44) (392 patients), StarClose in two studies (23, 45) (334 patients), Techstar in two studies (37, 46) (252 patients) and extravascular staple in one study (47) (242 patients). At network meta-analysis, all the devices resulted as not superior to manual compression to reduce all vascular complications, and these results did not vary at metaregression for age, sex and diameter of sheaths. Manual compression significantly increased time to hemostasis when compared with Femoseal (5.72; 1.91-19.10), Vasoseal (5.11; 2.32-11.33), Perclose (3.46; 1.70-7.06), Angioseal (14.95; 7.84-28.57) and Techstar (9.78; 1.81-53.65), while was similar to StarClose, DUETT and Exoseal. Conclusion Different vascular devices for closure of femoral access did not results superior to manual compression to reduce complications, whereas offered a shorted time to hemostasis. StarClose was the device with the highest probability to perform best in terms of complication, whereas Angioseal was superior in terms of reduction of time to hemostasis.