Search

Diagnostic criteria for anterior STEMI differ between the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Resuscitation Council (ERC). A greater degree of ST-segment elevation is required to meet ERC criteria compared to ESC criteria. This may potentially lead to discrepancies in management between emergency teams and cardiologists, subsequent delay in reperfusion therapy and worse prognosis.We performed an observational study in patients with anterior STEMI routinely treated with primary PCI and assessed whether differing electrocardiographic diagnostic criteria could impact treatment and short-term prognosis. All patients in the study had anterior STEMI confirmed by electrocardiographic ESC criteria and subsequent coronary angiography. Patients were divided into two groups. Those who did not meet ERC criteria in the index ECG were assigned to the "non-ERC" group and were compared with those who met them - the "ERC" group.Out of 60 patients with anterior STEMI based on ESC criteria (mean age 66.9 ± 13.6 years, 70% males), 26 patients (44%) did not meet ERC criteria ("non-ERC" group) for STEMI. There were no significant differences in age, gender distribution or clinical characteristics between "ERC" and "non-ERC" patients. Total-Ischemic-Time, Patient-Delay, and System-Delay times were significantly longer in "non-ERC" group (433.1 ± 389.9 min vs. 264.2 ± 229.6 min, p = 0.03; 290.8 ± 337.6 min vs. 129.5 ± 144.9 min; p0.05 and 158.8 ± 158 vs 134.6 ± 191 min, p0.02 respectively). There were no differences in In-Hospital-Delay, procedure duration, and success rate of PCI. Proximal LAD occlusion (64.7%) and TIMI = 0 flow (73.5%) tended to be more frequently observed in "ERC" than in the "non-ERC" group (53.8% and 65.4%, respectively). Hospitalization time and LVEF (44.4 ± 8.7 vs 42.8 ± 9.5%, p = 0.53) were similar between groups.Differences in electrocardiographic criteria for anterior STEMI leave a significant proportion of patients undiagnosed. Patients with STEMI who failed to meet less strict ERC criteria had more distal LAD disease with better TIMI flow but received reperfusion therapy later. Thus, character of the disease may compensate for treatment delay but this needs to be further evaluated. Finally, lowering the cut-off point with stricter criteria compromises specificity and is expected to increase the false positive rate, however there were no false positives in this study as all patients were angiographically confirmed to have acute coronary obstruction.

BackgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major health challenge; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on OHCA in the South Bronx is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine differences between return of spontaneous circulation(ROSC), witnessed arrest, bystander CPR and survival to discharge, prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve ROSC and survival.MethodsSingle-center retrospective study of non-traumatic OHCA adult patients admitted to Lincoln Medical Center between 8/2019 to 6/2021, 3/2020 being the first established date of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding was used to identify cardiac arrests and collect information. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM-SPSS.ResultsROSC time pre COVID-19 was 26 minutes, during the COVID-19 pandemic it was 25 minutes 54 seconds. A significant difference in witnessed arrests in the pre COVID-19 period compared to the COVID-19 period (86% vs 55% p = 0.03). Bystander CPR occurred 36% of the time in the pre COVID-19 period contrasting to 19% during. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic the overall survival to discharge in OHCA ROSC cases was 28.5% comparing to 29% during the pandemic. ROSC was 18 minutes among survivors during the pandemic, compared to 21 minutes in survivors prior to COVID (p = 0.2).ConclusionThere was a non-significant difference in ROSC, bystander CPR and survival to discharge in non-traumatic OHCA prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the South Bronx. There was a significant difference in witnessed vs unwitnessed OHCA prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Between 2013 and 2016 there were approximately 6.2 million adults in the United States living with heart failure; nearly half had an ejection fraction that was preserved. Despite the high prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), our understanding of this disease is limited and it still carries significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. At present, physicians are burdened by the inconclusive benefits of currently available treatment options. Recently the scientific community has seen an influx of new pathophysiology studies and outcome trials that have reshaped our understanding of HFpEF as a complex, multi-systemic disease. Pharmacological trials involving beta-blockers, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone antagonists, and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging results, but have yet to reach the significance of advancements made in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This review aims to summarize landmark clinical trials that have influenced current treatment guidelines, and reports on emerging evidence supporting/refuting new treatment modalities including pharmacotherapy, lifestyle modification and device therapy.

Pericardial disease is a common manifestation of malignancy. Gynecologic malignancies such as ovarian cancer rarely present with cardiac involvement. Cardiac tamponade may be the initial presentation of malignancy in as many as half of pericardial disease cases. We report the case of a 60-year-old female with known ovarian adenocarcinoma, who achieved initial success with tumor debulking and adjuvant chemotherapy but was lost to follow-up. She presented again three years later with new-onset dyspnea and described a syncopal episode. A chest radiograph showed an enlarged cardiac silhouette and bilateral pleural effusions. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed a large pericardial effusion with diastolic collapse of the right atrium and ventricle, consistent with tamponade physiology. Subxiphoid pericardiocentesis and pigtail drain were placed under fluoroscopy with resolution of symptoms and no recurrence. Neoplastic etiology was confirmed by immunocytochemistry on cell block positive for PAX-8. As an adjunct or alternative to cytologic evaluation, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and calculation of the apparent diffusion coefficient can be used to differentiate between malignant and benign effusions. Malignant pericardial effusion in ovarian cancer is a treatable oncologic emergency where timely diagnosis and management may facilitate palliation and prolong life.