Northwell intracoronary brachytherapy for the treatment of recurrent drug eluting stent in-stent restenosis (NITDI study group).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on safety, short-term and long-term clinical efficacy following intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT) for restenosis (ISR) in patients with drug eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: ICBT is an effective treatment for ISR of bare metal stents (BMS) but its utilization has waned due to the advent of DES. ISR following DES occurs at a frequency of 8% or greater. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients treated on an institutional review board (IRB) approved protocol using ICBT for DES ISR between January 2011 and October 2016. All patients were followed for 24 months for procedural complications, mortality, clinical ISR/target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stroke. RESULTS: A total of 290 patients were identified with a mean age of 66.6 years. All of them had high rates of typical coronary artery disease risk factors. Our primary outcome, composite of in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), safety outcomes and procedural failure was noted in 1(0.3%) patient who had a MI. No other secondary outcome was noted in-hospital. At 1-year follow up, 12.4% patients had ISR, 1.7% patients died, and 1 (0.3%) had ischemic stroke. At 2-year, 14.7% had ISR, and total 6 (2.1%) patients had MI. CONCLUSION: ICBT demonstrates excellent technical success rates for treatment, safety, and reasonable efficacy over 2-years to be free from recurrent clinical ISR. This study represents the largest ICBT data for DES ISR to date among very complex lesion subsets, however, more prospective data will be needed to determine the optimal patient for treatment.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional cardiology fellowship training in the New York metropolitan area: A perspective from the United States epicenter.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare burden posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the New York Metropolitan area has necessitated the postponement of elective procedures resulting in a marked reduction in cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) volumes with a potential to impact interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship training. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey sent electronically to 21 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited IC fellowship program directors (PDs) and their respective fellows. RESULTS: Fourteen programs (67%) responded to the survey and all acknowledged a significant decrease in CCL procedural volumes. More than half of the PDs reported part of their CCL being converted to inpatient units and IC fellows being redeployed to COVID-19 related duties. More than two-thirds of PDs believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would have a moderate (57%) or severe (14%) adverse impact on IC fellowship training, and 21% of the PDs expected their current fellows' average percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume to be below 250. Of 25 IC fellow respondents, 95% expressed concern that the pandemic would have a moderate (72%) or severe (24%) adverse impact on their fellowship training, and nearly one-fourth of fellows reported performing fewer than 250 PCIs as of March 1st. Finally, roughly one-third of PDs and IC fellows felt that there should be consideration of an extension of fellowship training or a period of early career mentorship after fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant reduction in CCL procedural volumes that is impacting IC fellowship training in the NY metropolitan area. These results should inform professional societies and accreditation bodies to offer tailored opportunities for remediation of affected trainees.

Short term outcomes of rotational atherectomy versus orbital atherectomy in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is one of the paramount hurdles for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) since it impedes stent delivery and complete expansion. This study intended to evaluate the short-term clinical and procedural outcomes comparing rotational atherectomy (RA) and orbital atherectomy (OA) in patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions undergoing PCI. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis included all head-to-head published comparisons of coronary RA versus OA. Procedural endpoints and post-procedural clinical outcomes (30 days/in-hospital), were compared. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. Results: Seven retrospective observational investigations with a total of 4623 patients, including 3203 patients in the RA group and 1420 patients in the OA group, were incorporated. Compared with OA, the RA group was associated with a higher incidence of myocardial infarction at short-term follow-up (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.07-2.29, p = .02, I2 = 0%). No difference was noted among other short-term post-procedural clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events. Among procedural complications, RA was associated with reduced coronary artery dissection and arterial perforation. Increased fluoroscopy time was observed in the RA cohort as compared with OA (MD: 4.78, 95% CI: 2.25-7.30, p = .0002, I2 = 80%). Conclusion: RA was associated with fewer vascular complications, but at a cost of higher incidence of myocardial infarction and higher fluoroscopy time compared with OA, at short term follow-up. OA is a safe and effective alternative for the management of CAC.

Clinical Implications of the ISCHEMIA Trial: Invasive vs Conservative Approach in Stable Coronary Disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To identify key strengths and weaknesses of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and explore its clinical implications in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Previous studies have shown inconsistent benefit of early angiography and revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The ISCHEMIA trial showed no significant reduction in mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing early angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy compared to patients on medical therapy alone in specific patient population with stable coronary artery disease. The ISCHEMIA trial provides insights into invasive versus pharmacological treatment for patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Though it may have reduced applicability given its broad exclusion criteria, it offers useful information about the utility of non-invasive imaging modalities for selecting optimal revascularization candidates.

Management of acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Consensus Statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

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.

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Primary Results From the BIONICS Trial (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis).

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of a novel cobalt alloy-based coronary stent with a durable elastomeric polymer eluting the antiproliferative agent ridaforolimus for treatment of patients with coronary artery disease is undetermined. METHODS: A prospective, international 1:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate in a noninferiority design the relative safety and efficacy of ridaforolimus-eluting stents (RESs) and slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents among 1919 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 76 centers. Inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with recent myocardial infarction, total occlusions, bifurcations lesions, and other complex conditions. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. Overall, mean age was 63.4 years, 32.5% had diabetes mellitus, and 39.7% presented with acute coronary syndromes. At 12 months, the primary end point of target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was 5.4% for both devices (upper bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval 1.8%, Pnoninferiority=0.001). Definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were low in both groups (0.4% RES versus 0.6% zotarolimus-eluting stent, P=0.75); 13-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss was 0.22±0.41 mm and 0.23±0.39 mm (Pnoninferiority=0.004) for the RES and zotarolimus-eluting stent groups, respectively, and intravascular ultrasound percent neointimal hyperplasia was 8.10±5.81 and 8.85±7.77, respectively (Pnoninferiority=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In the present trial, which allowed broad inclusion criteria, the novel RESs met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents for the primary end point of target lesion failure at 12 months and had similar measures of late lumen loss. These findings support the safety and efficacy of RESs in patients who are representative of clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01995487.

Clinical outcomes of atherectomy prior to percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of outcomes following rotational versus orbital atherectomy (COAP-PCI study).

BACKGROUND: Because of the challenges in treating calcified coronary artery disease (CAD), lesion preparation has become increasingly important prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite growing data for both rotational atherectomy (RA) and orbital atherectomy (OA), there have been no multicenter studies comparing the safety and efficacy of both. We sought to examine the clinical outcomes of patients with calcified CAD who underwent atherectomy. METHODS: A total of 39 870 patients from five tertiary care hospitals who had PCI from January 2011 to January 2017 were identified. 907 patients who had RA or OA were included. This multicenter, prospectively collected observational analysis compared OA and RA. The primary end-point was myocardial infarction and safety outcomes including significant dissection, perforation, cardiac tamponade, and vascular complications. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to reduce selection bias. RESULTS: After matching, 546 patients were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint, myocardial infarction occurred less frequently with OA compared to RA (6.7% vs 13.8%, P ≤ 0.01) in propensity score matched cohorts. Procedural safety outcomes were comparable between the groups. The secondary outcome of death on discharge occurred less in the OA group as compared with RA (0% vs 2.2%, P = 0.01). Fluoroscopy time was less in patients who were treated with OA (21.9 vs 25.6 min, P ≤ 0.01). Additional secondary outcomes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In this non-randomized, multicenter comparison of contemporary atherectomy devices, OA was associated with significantly decreased in-hospital myocardial infarction and mortality after propensity score matching with decreased fluoroscopy time.

Safety of orbital atherectomy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients with severely calcified lesions and systolic dysfunction who underwent orbital atherectomy (OA). We hypothesized that OA would provide similar outcomes in patients with systolic dysfunction compared with patients with preserved systolic function. BACKGROUND: Systolic dysfunction is associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The effects of OA in patients with systolic dysfunction are unknown. METHODS: Our analysis retrospectively analyzed 438 patients (n = 69 with EF ≤ 40%) who underwent OA. The primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with preserved versus reduced systolic function in terms of dissections (0.9% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.51), perforation (0.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.07), or no reflow (0.3% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.07). Patients with systolic dysfunction had higher rates of the composite of 30-day MACCE (1.1% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.002) and the individual end points of death (0.3% vs. 7.2%, P < 0.001), and myocardial infarction (0.5% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.03). The rates of target vessel revascularization (0% vs. 0%, P = 1), stroke (0.3% vs. 0%, P > 0.9), and stent thrombosis (0.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.5) were low in both groups and did not differ. CONCLUSION: Plaque modification with OA was safe and well tolerated in patients with systolic dysfunction. In this high-risk cohort, adverse clinical outcomes occurred more frequently than in a lower risk population.

In-hospital outcomes and postdischarge mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether advances in management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and introduction of novel oral anticoagulants have changed outcomes in patients with ACS with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the incidence of AF in patients admitted for ACS and to evaluate its association with adverse outcomes, given the recent advances in management of both diseases. METHODS: Natural language processing search algorithms identified AF in patients admitted with ACS across 13 Northwell Health Hospitals from 2015 to 2021. Hierarchical generalized linear mixed modeling was used to assess the association between AF and in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and stroke outcomes; marginal Cox regression modeling was used to assess the association between AF and postdischarge mortality. RESULTS: Of 12,315 patients admitted for ACS, 3018 (24.5%) had AF with 1609 (53.3%) newly diagnosed. AF patients more commonly received anticoagulation with an oral anticoagulant (80.4% vs 12.3%) or heparin (61.9% vs 56.9%), had lengthier intensive care unit stay (72 vs 49 hours), and underwent fewer percutaneous coronary interventions (31.9% vs 53.1%). In-hospital bleeding, stroke, and mortality were higher in the AF group (15.3% vs 5.0%, 7.4% vs 2.4%, and 6.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). AF was an independent risk factor for all in-hospital outcomes (odds ratios of 2.5, 2.7, and 2.0 for bleeding, stroke, and mortality, respectively) as well as for postdischarge mortality (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.5). CONCLUSION: AF is present in 25% of ACS patients and increases risk of in-hospital and postdischarge adverse outcomes. Additional data are required to direct optimal management.

Acute COVID-19 Pneumonia Unmasking a Large Left Atrial Myxoma.

This is a case of acute coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia that revealed an incidental large atrial myxoma with obstructive physiology that ultimately required emergent treatment with a definitive atriotomy and resection of the underlying myxoma.

Short- and Mid-Term Outcomes of Complex and High-Risk Versus Standard Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing TAVR varies and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the outcomes of complex and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (CHIP-PCIs) and TAVR compared with standard PCI and TAVR. Between January 2014 and March 2021, a total of 276 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and PCI at 3 centers within Northwell Health were retrospectively reviewed. CHIP-PCI was defined as PCI with one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <30%; left main coronary artery (LMCA)/chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention; atherectomy; or need for left ventricular (LV) support. One hundred twenty- seven patients (46%) had CHIP-PCI prior to TAVR and 149 patients (54%) had standard PCI. Thirteen percent of CHIP-PCI and 22% of standard PCI cases were done concomitantly with TAVR. CHIP-PCI criteria were met for low EF (19%), LMCA (25%), CTO (3%), LV support (20%), and atherectomy (50%). The types of valves used were similarly divided (49% balloon expandable vs 51% self expanding. Major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CHIP-PCI/TAVR was 4.9% at 30 days vs 1.3% for standard PCI/TAVR (P=.09), driven by in-hospital stroke. At 1 year, the rates of MACCE for CHIP-PCI/TAVR remained higher than for standard PCI/TAVR, but was not statistically significant (8.7% vs 4%; P=.06), driven by revascularization. We found no differences between major and/or minor vascular complications. New York Heart Association classification at 1 month was similar (I/II 93% vs 95%; P=.87). Our study suggests that CHIP-PCI can be safely performed in patients with complex CAD and concomitant severe AS.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With COVID-19 Presenting With Myocardial Infarction.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and mortality. However, little is known about the frequency of use and clinical impact of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in these patients. We sought to define patterns of MCS utilization, patient characteristics, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with STEMI. The NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) is an ongoing prospective, observational registry of patients with COVID-19 positive (COVID-19+) with STEMI with a contemporary control group of persons under investigation who subsequently tested negative for COVID-19 (COVID-19-). We compared the baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19+ and patients with COVID-19- according to the use of MCS. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, recurrent MI, and repeat unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,379 patients (586 COVID-19+ and 793 COVID-19-) enrolled in the NACMI registry between January 2020 and November 2021 were included in this analysis; overall, MCS use was 12.3% (12.1% [n = 71] COVID-19+/MCS positive [MCS+] vs 12.4% [n = 98] COVID-19-/MCS+). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention was similar between the groups (84% vs 78%; p = 0.404). Intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used MCS device in both groups (53% in COVID-19+/MCS+ and 75% in COVID-19-/MCS+). The primary outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19+/MCS+ patients (60% vs 30%; p = 0.001) because of very high in-hospital mortality (59% vs 28%; p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with COVID-19+ with STEMI requiring MCS have very high in-hospital mortality, likely related to the significantly higher pulmonary involvement compared with patients with COVID-19- with STEMI requiring MCS.

Five-Year Clinical Outcomes of the COBRA Polyzene F NanoCoated Coronary Stent System.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The COBRA Polyzene F™ NanoCoated Coronary Stent System (PzF coated stent) stent demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes at 9 months but late results have not been reported. We sought to assess the late safety and effectiveness of the PzF coated stent for treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions. METHODS: Patients with de novo coronary artery lesions meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled in a non-randomized, prospective clinical trial and followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF, cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], or clinically-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at 9 months. Secondary endpoints included major adverse clinical events (MACE, cardiac death, MI, or clinically driven TLR), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite or probable stent thrombosis during 5-year follow-up. Endpoints at 5 years were analyzed as cumulative incidence accounting for competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 296 enrolled patients, 290 (98%) were evaluable at 5 years. By 5 years, MACE had occurred in 61 (21.3%), cardiac death in 11 (4.2%), MI in 25 (8.6%), and TLR in 34 (12.0%) subjects. Between follow-up years 1 and 5, a first MACE occurred in 17 (6.2%), including 10 (4.0%) cardiac death, 4 (1.6%) MI, and 7 (2.9%) TLR events. There were no definite or probable stent thromboses. CONCLUSIONS: The PzF coated stent demonstrated continued safety and effectiveness through 5 years with low to very low incident rates of MACE, MI, TLR and stent thrombosis between 1 and 5 years after stent placement.

Design and Rationale of a Randomized Trial of COBRA PzF Stenting to REDUCE Duration of Triple Therapy (COBRA-REDUCE).

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: A coronary stent with thromboresistant and pro-healing properties such as the polymer polyzene F-coated (COBRA PzF) stent might safely allow for a very short duration of triple therapy in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo coronary stenting. METHODS: The COBRA-REDUCE trial is a prospective, multinational, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial. A total of 996 patients at high bleeding risk because of requirement for OAC (with a vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist for any indication) will be randomized at sites in the United States and Europe to treatment with the COBRA-PzF stent followed by very short duration (14 days) DAPT or a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved new generation drug-eluting stent followed by guideline-recommended DAPT duration (3 or 6 months). Two co-primary endpoints will be tested at 6 months: a bleeding co-primary endpoint (bleeding academic research consortium [BARC] ≥2 bleeding beyond 14 days or after hospital discharge, whichever is later [superiority hypothesis]) and a thrombo-embolic co-primary endpoint (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite/probable stent thrombosis or ischaemic stroke [non-inferiority hypothesis]). The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02594501). CONCLUSION: The COBRA-REDUCE trial will determine whether coronary stenting with the COBRA PzF stent followed by 14 days of clopidogrel will reduce bleeding without increasing thrombo-embolic events compared with FDA-approved DES followed by 3-6 months clopidogrel in patients taking OAC and aspirin.

Usefulness of Elevated Troponin to Predict Death in Patients With COVID-19 and Myocardial Injury.

Elevations in troponin levels have been shown to predict mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The role of inflammation in myocardial injury remains unclear. We sought to determine the association of elevated troponin with mortality in a large, ethnically diverse population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and to determine the association of elevated inflammatory markers with increased troponin levels. We reviewed all patients admitted at our health system with COVID-19 from March 1 to April 27, 2020, who had a troponin assessment within 48 hours of admission. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for mortality during hospitalization, controlling for demographics, co-morbidities, and markers of inflammation. Of 11,159 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 6,247 had a troponin assessment within 48 hours. Of these, 4,426 (71%) patients had normal, 919 (15%) had mildly elevated, and 902 (14%) had severely elevated troponin. Acute phase and inflammatory markers were significantly elevated in patients with mildly and severely elevated troponin compared with normal troponin. Patients with elevated troponin had significantly increased odds of death for mildly elevated compared with normal troponin (adjusted OR, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.68 to 2.53; p < 0.001) and for severely elevated compared with normal troponin (OR, 4.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.66 to 5.54; p < 0.001) independently of elevation in inflammatory markers. In conclusion, patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and elevated troponin had markedly increased mortality compared with patients with normal troponin levels. This risk was independent of cardiovascular co-morbidities and elevated markers of inflammation.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Care: Lessons Learned From COVID-19 at a Large New York Health System.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare systems around the world, resulting in morbidity, mortality, and a dramatic economic downturn In the United States. Urgent responses to the pandemic halted routine hospital workflow in an effort to increase hospital capacity, maintain staffing, and ration protective gear. Most notably, New York saw the largest surge of COVID-19 cases nationwide. Healthcare personnel and physician leaders at Northwell Health, the largest healthcare system in New York, have worked together to successfully implement operational changes resulting in a paradigm shift in cardiac care delivery. In this manuscript, we detail specific protocol adjustments made in our cardiology department, cardiology service line, and healthcare system in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the sustainability of this shift moving forward and the opportunity to optimize care for cardiovascular patients in the post COVID-19 era.

Increased Inpatient Mortality for Cardiovascular Patients During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Epidemic in New York.

Background The acuity and magnitude of the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in New York mandated a drastic change in healthcare access and delivery of care. Methods and Results We retrospectively studied patients admitted with an acute cardiovascular syndrome as their principal diagnosis to 13 hospitals across Northwell Health during March 11 through May 26, 2020 (first COVID-19 epidemic wave) and the same period in 2019. Three thousand sixteen patients (242 COVID-19 positive) were admitted for an acute cardiovascular syndrome during the first COVID-19 wave compared with 9422 patients 1 year prior (decrease of 68.0%, P<0.001). During this time, patients with cardiovascular disease presented later to the hospital (360 versus 120 minutes for acute myocardial infarction), underwent fewer procedures (34.6% versus 45.6%, P<0.001), were less likely to be treated in an intensive care unit setting (8.7% versus 10.8%, P<0.001), and had a longer hospital stay (2.91 [1.71-6.05] versus 2.87 [1.82-4.95] days, P=0.033). Inpatient cardiovascular mortality during the first epidemic outbreak increased by 111.1% (3.8 versus 1.8, P<0.001) and was not related to COVID-19-related admissions, all cause in-hospital mortality, or incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac deaths in New York. Admission during the first COVID-19 surge along with age and positive COVID-19 test independently predicted mortality for cardiovascular admissions (odds ratios, 1.30, 1.05, and 5.09, respectively, P<0.0001). Conclusions A lower rate and later presentation of patients with cardiovascular pathology, coupled with deviation from common clinical practice mandated by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, might have accounted for higher in-hospital cardiovascular mortality during that period.

Pulmonary Embolism in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 (From a New York Health System).

Pulmonary embolisms (PEs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have increasingly been reported in observational studies. However, limited information describing their clinical characteristics and outcomes exists. Our study aims to describe clinical features and risk stratification strategies of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with PE. We retrospectively analyzed 101 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection and acute PE. Clinical outcomes measured were intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, bleeding and transfusion events, acute kidney injury (AKI) and mortality. Pulmonary severity index (PESI) scores were used for risk stratification. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (50%), obesity (27%) and hyperlipidemia (32%) among this cohort. Baseline D-dimer abnormalities (4,647.0 ± 8,281.8) were noted on admission with a 3-fold increase at the time of PE diagnosis (13,288.4 ± 14,917.9; p <0.05). Five (5%) patients required systemic thrombolysis and 12 (12%) patients experienced moderate to severe bleeding. Thirty-one (31%) patients developed AKI and 1 (1%) patient required renal replacement therapy. Twenty-three (23%) patients were admitted to intensive care unit, of which 20 (20%) patients received mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate was 20%. Most patients (65%) had Intermediate to high risk PESI scores (>85), which portended a worse prognosis with higher mortality rate and length of stay. In conclusion, this study provides characteristics and early outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute pulmonary embolism. PESI scores were utilized for risk stratifying clinical outcomes. Our results should serve to alert the medical community to heighted vigilance of this VTE complication associated with COVID-19 infection.

Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Position Statement From the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

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.