Safety of an Early Discharge Strategy (≤48 h) after ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Background: Early discharge following ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) confers notable advantages for both patients and healthcare systems. However, the adoption of a very early discharge strategy for selected patients remains limited due to safety considerations. We aimed to provide some insight into the safety of a discharge program with a hospital stay lasting <48 h after a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Using a registry of 1105 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI in our hospital between January 2015 and October 2023, we enrolled all the patients who had a hospital stay ≤48 h, according to a prespecified institutional protocol. The primary objective was a combined rate of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death within 30 days of discharge. Emergency department visits or hospitalizations due to cardiovascular causes, along with the all-cause mortality, were measured during the same period. Results: A total of 453 (41%) patients were discharged ≤48 h after admission for a STEMI. The mean age was 62.4 (±12.5 years), 24.3% were women, and 17.9% were people with diabetes. Up to 96% of the procedures had been performed through radial artery access, and there were no major vascular complications. Regarding the primary endpoint, there was one event (0.2%; one patient suffered a non-fatal myocardial infarction). There were no cardiovascular deaths or deaths from other causes. Only five patients (1.1%) were re-hospitalized or visited the emergency department due to cardiovascular causes. Conclusions: An early discharge strategy for patients within 48 h of experiencing STEMI and undergoing primary PCI appears feasible and safe.

Checkpoint Immunotherapy-Induced Myocarditis and Encephalitis Complicated With Complete AV Block: Not All Hope Is Lost.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a myriad of autoimmune adverse events. We present a 70-year-old patient with renal-cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab/ipilimumab complicated with myocarditis and encephalitis in which gradual impairment of the His-Purkinje system progressed to complete atrioventricular block. Full recovery was achieved after treatment with corticosteroids and immunoglobulins. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Cardiovascular Oncology: The Need for a Multidisciplinary Approach.

Improved cancer survivorship has led to an increase in cardiovascular (CV) complications in the oncologic population, mainly associated with therapeutic regimens. Hence, cardio-oncology has grown toward unifying the cancer care process in which the best prevention, early detection, treatment, and CV surveillance are offered to patients. This multidisciplinary approach allows us to optimize and agree upon clinical decisions to enhance clinical outcomes. Atrial fibrillation is one of the hot topics in the field because it is still challenging in cancer patients. The optimal antithrombotic therapy remains unclear. Nevertheless, evidence supports that specific recommendations are needed due to a hemorrhagic/thrombotic disbalance present within this subgroup of patients and a low rate of anticoagulation treatments compared with the general population. Further, cardiotoxicity management is currently transforming. Increasingly, early detection of subclinical alterations is raising awareness. When medical therapy is initiated early, fewer patients progress to ventricular dysfunction and the rate of patients completing cancer therapy gradually increases. New approaches are demonstrating better outcomes and these strategies will expectedly be established in clinical practice. Cardio-oncology enables us to find the best balance between cancer treatment and CV health protection. Nowadays, more and more physicians are being instructed in this discipline, which gradually exhibits a greater presence in conferences and scientific journals. However, given the need for physicians thoroughly trained in cardio-oncology, this subspecialty must be promoted further.

New-onset atrial fibrillation during COVID-19 infection predicts poor prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to a paradigm shift in healthcare worldwide. Little is known about the impact on the cardiovascular system, and the incidence and consequences of new onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) in infected patients remain unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the cardiovascular outcomes of patients with newonset AF and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS: This observational study analyzed a sample of 160 consecutive patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. A group with new-onset AF (n = 12) was compared with a control group (total: n = 148, sinus rhythm: n = 118, previous AF: n = 30). New-onset AF patients were significantly older and hypertensive, as well as presenting more frequently with a history of acute coronary syndrome and renal dysfunction. This group showed a higher incidence of thromboembolic events (41.7% vs. 4.1%; p < 0.001), bleeding (33.3% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.005), a combined endpoint of thrombosis and death (58.3% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.006) and longer hospital stays (16.4 vs. 8.6 days, p < 0.001), with no differences in all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, adjusted by potential confounding factors, new-onset AF demonstrated a 14.26 odds ratio for thromboembolism (95% confidence interval 2.86-71.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: New-onset AF in COVID-19 patients presumably has a notable impact on prognosis. The appearance of new-onset AF is related to worse cardiovascular outcomes, considering it as an independent predictor of embolic events. Further studies are needed to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of developing "de novo" AF, provide early anticoagulation and minimize the embolic risk of both entities.

Myocardial injury determination improves risk stratification and predicts mortality in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite being associated with worse prognosis in patients with COVID-19, systematic determination of myocardial injury is not recommended. The aim of the study was to study the effect of myocardial injury assessment on risk stratification of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Seven hundred seven consecutive adult patients admitted to a large tertiary hospital with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Demographic data, comorbidities, laboratory results and clinical outcomes were recorded. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated in order to quantify the degree of comorbidities. Independent association of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) increase with outcomes was evaluated by multivariate regression analyses and area under curve. In addition, propensity-score matching was performed to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In the matched cohort (mean age 66.76 ± 15.7 years, 37.3% females), cTnI increase above the upper limit was present in 20.9% of the population and was associated with worse clinical outcomes, including all-cause mortality within 30 days (45.1% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.005). The addition of cTnI to a multivariate prediction model showed a significant improvement in the area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (0.775 vs. 0.756, DC-statistic = 0.019; 95% confidence interval 0.001-0.037). Use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors was not associated with mortality after adjusting by baseline risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial injury is independently associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of baseline comorbidities and its addition to multivariate regression models significantly improves their performance in predicting mortality. The determination of myocardial injury biomarkers on hospital admission and its combination with CCI can classify patients in three risk groups (high, intermediate and low) with a clearly distinct 30-day mortality.