Outcomes of Provisional Stenting With Versus Without Side Branch Intervention in Patients With Bifurcation Lesion-Related ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

To date, the best approach to coronary bifurcation lesion remains unsettled, and the parameters to guide side branch ballooning or stenting are not yet defined. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes after provisional stenting with versus without side branch intervention. A cohort was conducted on 132 patients who underwent coronary angiography at Toulouse University Hospital for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with large culprit nonleft main coronary bifurcation lesion. Study participants were divided into 2 groups depending on the performance or not of a side branch intervention. We observed the living status at 1-year after hospital discharge. Side branch intervention by balloon inflation or final balloon kissing technique was performed in 34.1% of study participants. At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 7.8 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1 to 15), and although it seemed higher in the side branch intervention group (10 per 100 person-years [95% CI 3.8 to 26.7] vs 6.6 per 100 persons-years [95% CI 2.8 to 15.9]), the survival analyses showed no differences in survival outcomes (hazard ratio side branch intervention 1.55 [0.42 to 5.78], p = 0.513). In conclusion, in the setting of a coronary bifurcation causing ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, simple provisional stenting without side branch intervention showed a low mortality rate and no differences in the 1-year survival outcomes.

Acute pulmonary embolism and systemic thrombolysis in the era of COVID-19 global pandemic 2020: a case series of seven patients admitted to a regional hospital in the French epidemic cluster.

BACKGROUND: The novel Coronavirus [named severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2)] was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which required mechanical ventilation in a high percentage of critically ill patients. Recent studies have highlighted a state of hypercoagulability in patients with SARS-CoV-2, leading to an increased risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The low proportion of PE-associated to DVT in COVID-19 patients may suggest that they have pulmonary thrombosis rather than embolism. There is no guideline recommendation on the treatment of massive PE in COVID-19 patients suffering from ARDS, without cardiogenic shock. CASE SUMMARY: We described a series of seven SARS-COV-2 patients diagnosed with PE, in our institution, who underwent the use of systemic thrombolysis (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) according to the standard protocol of 10 mg over 15 min, then 90 mg over 120 min. DISCUSSION: According to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) severity scale, three patients had high-risk PE and four had intermediate high-risk PE. Systemic thrombolysis was found to be associated with a reduction of the Brescia-COVID Respiratory Severity Scale in five patients, recording a reduction from 3 to 1 in 2/5 patients, and from 3 to 2 in 3/5 patients. Furthermore, 3/5 patients had an initial improvement of their alveolar partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio ranging from a 19% (Patient 3) to a 156% improvement (Patient 6). It was also associated with a decrease of the right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and the RV/left ventricular ratio 24 h later. No major bleeding events occurred after the thrombolysis, but the overall mortality after performing systemic thrombolysis was up to 3/7 patients. CONCLUSION: Despite the low level of knowledge about the underlying pathophysiology of the COVID-19 ARDS, venous thromboembolic events, and the microvascular thrombosis, our findings suggest that in the treatment of PE with RV failure in patients with COVID-19 suffering from ARDS, without cardiogenic shock, systemic thrombolysis should be considered.