Prasugrel Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Insights From ASET Pilot Studies.

Background: The ASET (Acetyl-Salicylic Elimination Trial) pilot studies recently investigated P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without aspirin immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Brazil and Japan. Objectives: This comparative analysis of the 2 ASET pilot studies aimed to summarize clinical outcomes and assess geographic and ethnic differences in baseline demographics and procedures. Methods: Patients undergoing successful platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation for chronic coronary syndrome were included. Following the index PCI, patients received prasugrel monotherapy with a maintenance dose of 10 mg/day in Brazil and 3.75 mg/day in Japan. The primary ischemic endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, spontaneous target vessel myocardial infarction, or definite stent thrombosis. The primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 and 5 bleeding at up to 3 months. Results: Of 409 enrollments, 3-month follow-up was completed in 406 patients. Mean age was 64.3 ± 8.4 years, and 73% were men. Overall, post-TIMI flow grade 3 was achieved in 99.8%. Intravascular imaging for poststent optimization was used in 16.8% and 99.6% of treated lesions in Brazil and Japan, respectively. The primary ischemic and bleeding endpoints occurred in the same patient (0.2%). No stent thrombosis events occurred. Conclusions: Prasugrel monotherapy following PCI was safe and feasible in selected low-risk chronic coronary syndrome patients after optimal platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation regardless of the ethnic and geographic differences in baseline demographics, procedures, and prasugrel dosage. Randomized controlled trials will be needed to compare P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without aspirin with the current standard of care.

Geographic disparity of pathophysiological coronary artery disease characteristics: Insights from ASET trials.

BACKGROUND: The geographical disparity in the pathophysiological pattern of coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the geographical variance in the pathophysiological characteristics of CAD. METHODS: Physiological indices derived from angiography-based fractional flow reserve pullbacks from patients with chronic coronary syndrome enrolled in the ASET Japan (n = 206) and ASET Brazil (n = 201) studies, which shared the same eligibility criteria, were analysed. The pathophysiological patterns of CAD were characterised using Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (µQFR)-derived indices acquired from pre-PCI angiograms. The diffuseness of CAD was defined by the µQFR pullback pressure gradient index. RESULTS: Significant functional stenoses pre-PCI (µQFR ≤0.80) were more frequent in ASET Japan compared to ASET Brazil (89.9% vs. 67.5%, p < 0.001), as were rates of a post-PCI µQFR <0.91 (22.1% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.013). In the multivariable analysis, pre-procedural µQFR and diffuse disease were independent factors for predicting a post-PCI µQFR <0.91, which contributed to the different rates of post-PCI µQFR ≥0.91 between the studies. Among vessels with a post-PCI µQFR <0.91, a consistent diffuse pattern of CAD pre- and post-PCI occurred in 78.3% and 76.7% of patients in ASET Japan and Brazil, respectively; only 6.3% (Japan) and 10.0% (Brazil) of vessels had a major residual gradient. Independent risk factors for diffuse disease were diabetes mellitus in ASET Japan, and age and male gender in Brazil. CONCLUSIONS: There was geographic disparity in pre-procedural angiography-based pathophysiological characteristics. The combined pre-procedural physiological assessment of vessel µQFR and diffuseness of CAD may potentially identify patients who will benefit most from PCI.

The association of myocardial strain with cardiac magnetic resonance and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocarditis.

Introduction: The role of myocardial strain in risk prediction for acute myocarditis (AMC) patients, measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), deserves further investigation. Our objective was to evaluate the association between myocardial strain measured by CMR and clinical events in AMC patients. Material and methods: This was a prospective single-center study of patients with AMC. We included 100 patients with AMC with CMR confirmation. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure and AMC recurrence in 24 months. A subgroup analysis was performed on a sample of 36 patients who underwent a second CMR between 6 and 18 months. The association between strain measures and clinical events or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was explored using Cox regression analysis. Global peak radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain in the left and right ventricles was assessed. ROC curve analysis was performed to identify cutoff points for clinical event prediction. Results: The mean follow-up was 18.7 ± 2.3 months, and the composite primary outcome occurred in 26 patients. The median LVEF at CMR at baseline was 57.5% (14.6%). LV radial strain (HR = 0.918, 95% CI: 0.858-0.982, p = 0.012), LV circumferential strain (HR = 1.177, 95% CI: 1.046-1.325, p = 0.007) and LV longitudinal strain (HR = 1.173, 95% CI: 1.031-1.334, p = 0.015) were independently associated with clinical event occurrence. The areas under the ROC curve for clinical event prediction were 0.80, 0.79 and 0.80 for LV radial, circumferential, and longitudinal strain, respectively. LV longitudinal strain was independently correlated with prognosis (HR = 1.282, CI 95%: 1.022-1.524, p = 0.007), even when analyzed together with ejection fraction and delayed enhancement. LV and right ventricle (RV) strain were not associated with an increase in LVEF. Finally, when the initial CMR findings were compared with the follow-up CMR findings, improvements in the measures of LV and RV myocardial strain were observed. Conclusion: Measurement of myocardial strain by CMR can provide prognostic information on AMC patients. LV radial, circumferential and longitudinal strain were associated with long-term clinical events in these patients.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: rationale and design of the NEOMINDSET Trial.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04360720).

Effect of Alirocumab on Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation After Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial.

BACKGROUND: Using data from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (NCT01663402), we sought to identify factors associated with the development of incident atrial fibrillation in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome without prior atrial fibrillation and to determine whether alirocumab treatment influenced risk of incident atrial fibrillation. METHODS: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES compared alirocumab treatment with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and dyslipidemia despite high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprised death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. Patients were classified as having previous atrial fibrillation (present prior to or at randomization) or no previous atrial fibrillation. A multivariable model was used to determine factors associated with incident atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Among 18,262 participants without prior atrial fibrillation at baseline, 499 (2.7%) had incident atrial fibrillation during follow-up. Older age, history of heart failure or myocardial infarction, and higher body mass index were significantly associated with incident atrial fibrillation. Treatment with alirocumab or placebo did not influence the cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.09). Patients with vs without a history of atrial fibrillation had a higher incidence of MACE (8.8 vs 3.7 events per 100 patient-years), without significant interaction between atrial fibrillation and randomized treatment on risk of MACE (Pinteraction = .78). CONCLUSIONS: While alirocumab did not modify risk of incident atrial fibrillation after acute coronary syndrome, it did reduce the risk of MACE, regardless of prior atrial fibrillation history. History of atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome.

High risk coronavirus disease 2019: The primary results of the CoronaHeart multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND: Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may present high risk features during hospitalization, including cardiovascular manifestations. However, less is known about the factors that may further increase the risk of death in these patients. METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 and high risk features according to clinical and/or laboratory criteria at 21 sites in Brazil from June 10th to October 23rd of 2020. All variables were collected until hospital discharge or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 2546 participants were included (mean age 65 years; 60.3% male). Overall, 70.8% were admitted to intensive care units and 54.2% had elevated troponin levels. In-hospital mortality was 41.7%. An interaction among sex, age and mortality was found (p = 0.007). Younger women presented higher rates of death than men (30.0% vs 22.9%), while older men presented higher rates of death than women (57.6% vs 49.2%). The strongest factors associated with in-hospital mortality were need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.4­12.7), elevated C-reactive protein (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7­2.9), cancer (OR 1.8, 95 %CI 1.2­2.9), and elevated troponin levels (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4­2.3). A risk score was developed for risk assessment of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort showed that patients with COVID-19 and high risk features have an elevated rate of in-hospital mortality with differences according to age and sex. These results highlight unique aspects of this population and might help identifying patients who may benefit from more careful initial surveillance and potential subsequent interventional therapies

High risk coronavirus disease 2019: The primary results of the CoronaHeart multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may present high risk features during hospitalization, including cardiovascular manifestations. However, less is known about the factors that may further increase the risk of death in these patients. METHODS: We included patients with COVID-19 and high risk features according to clinical and/or laboratory criteria at 21 sites in Brazil from June 10th to October 23rd of 2020. All variables were collected until hospital discharge or in-hospital death. RESULTS: A total of 2546 participants were included (mean age 65 years; 60.3% male). Overall, 70.8% were admitted to intensive care units and 54.2% had elevated troponin levels. In-hospital mortality was 41.7%. An interaction among sex, age and mortality was found (p = 0.007). Younger women presented higher rates of death than men (30.0% vs 22.9%), while older men presented higher rates of death than women (57.6% vs 49.2%). The strongest factors associated with in-hospital mortality were need for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.4-12.7), elevated C-reactive protein (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7-2.9), cancer (OR 1.8, 95 %CI 1.2-2.9), and elevated troponin levels (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.3). A risk score was developed for risk assessment of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort showed that patients with COVID-19 and high risk features have an elevated rate of in-hospital mortality with differences according to age and sex. These results highlight unique aspects of this population and might help identifying patients who may benefit from more careful initial surveillance and potential subsequent interventional therapies.

Tofacitinib in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients who are hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, hospitalized adults with Covid-19 pneumonia to receive either tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg or placebo twice daily for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 as assessed with the use of an eight-level ordinal scale (with scores ranging from 1 to 8 and higher scores indicating a worse condition). All-cause mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients underwent randomization at 15 sites in Brazil. Overall, 89.3% of the patients received glucocorticoids during hospitalization. The cumulative incidence of death or respiratory failure through day 28 was 18.1% in the tofacitinib group and 29.0% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.97; P = 0.04). Death from any cause through day 28 occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the tofacitinib group and in 5.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.63). The proportional odds of having a worse score on the eight-level ordinal scale with tofacitinib, as compared with placebo, was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36 to 1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.06) at day 28. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 patients (14.1%) in the tofacitinib group and in 17 (12.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia, tofacitinib led to a lower risk of death or respiratory failure through day 28 than placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; STOP-COVID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04469114.).

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience a myocardial infarction have complex coronary morphology and high in-hospital mortality: Primary results of a nationwide angiographic study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore angiographic patterns and in-hospital outcomes of patients with concomitant coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 may experience MI during the course of the viral infection. However, this association is currently poorly understood. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective study of consecutive patients with concomitant COVID-19 and MI who underwent coronary angiography. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiography were analyzed by two observers in an independent core lab. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included, of whom 142 (93.4%) had COVID-19 diagnosis confirmation. The median time between symptom onset and hospital admission was 5 (1-10) days. A total of 83 (54.6%) patients presented with ST-elevation MI. The median angiographic Syntax score was 16 (9.0-25.3) and 69.0% had multi-vessel disease. At least one complex lesion was found in 73.0% of patients, 51.3% had a thrombus containing lesion, and 57.9% had myocardial blush grades 0/1. The overall in-hospital mortality was 23.7%. ST-segment elevation MI presentation and baseline myocardial blush grades 0 or 1 were independently associated with a higher risk of death (HR 2.75, 95%CI 1.30-5.80 and HR 3.73, 95%CI 1.61-8.61, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have a MI in the context of ongoing COVID-19 mostly present complex coronary morphologies, implying a background of prior atherosclerotic disease superimposed on a thrombotic milieu. The in-hospital prognosis is poor with a markedly high mortality, prompting further investigation to better clarify this newly described condition.

Patients with COVID-19 who experience a myocardial infarction have complex coronary morphology and high in-hospital mortality: Primary results of a nationwide angiographic study

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore angiographic patterns and in-hospital outcomes of patients with concomitant coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 may experience MI during the course of the viral infection. However, this association is currently poorly understood. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective study of consecutive patients with concomitant COVID-19 and MI who underwent coronary angiography. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiography were analyzed by two observers in an independent core lab. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included, of whom 142 (93.4%) had COVID-19 diagnosis confirmation. The median time between symptom onset and hospital admission was 5 (1­10) days. A total of 83 (54.6%) patients presented with ST elevation MI. The median angiographic Syntax score was 16 (9.0­25.3) and 69.0% had multi-vessel disease. At least one complex lesion was found in 73.0% of patients, 51.3% had a thrombus containing lesion, and 57.9% had myocardial blush grades 0/1. The overall in-hospital mortality was 23.7%. ST-segment elevation MI presentation and baseline myocardial blush grades 0 or 1 were independently associated with a higher risk of death (HR 2.75, 95%CI 1.30­5.80 and HR 3.73, 95%CI 1.61­8.61, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have a MI in the context of ongoing COVID-19 mostly present complex coronary morphologies, implying a background of prior atherosclerotic disease superimposed on a thrombotic milieu. The in-hospital prognosis is poor with a markedly high mortality, prompting further investigation to better clarify this newly described condition.

Acute Myocarditis Associated with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Concomitant acute myocarditis and acute coronary thrombosis is a rare presentation of acute chest pain in the emergency department, although the association between acute infections with a variety of pathogens and an increased risk of myocardial infarction has been reported. A case of acute myocardial infarction associated with acute myocarditis caused by coronavirus 229E in a middle-aged man without risk factors for coronary artery disease is described here. Coronary CT angiography with late enhancement protocol revealed areas of myocarditis and infarction, and cardiac MRI and coronary angiography were then performed. © RSNA, 2021.

Aspirin-Free Prasugrel Monotherapy Following Coronary Artery Stenting in Patients With Stable CAD: The ASET Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that prasugrel monotherapy following successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation is feasible and safe in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that short dual-antiplatelet therapy strategies may provide an adequate balance between ischemic and bleeding risks. However, the complete omission of aspirin immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been tested so far. METHODS: The study was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial with a stopping rule based on the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis (if >3, trial enrollment would be terminated). Patients undergoing successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation for stable CAD with SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores <23 were included. All participants were on standard dual-antiplatelet therapy at the time of index PCI. Aspirin was discontinued on the day of the index procedure but given prior to the procedure; prasugrel was administered in the catheterization laboratory immediately after the successful procedure, and aspirin-free prasugrel became the therapy regimen from that moment. Patients were treated solely with prasugrel for 3 months. The primary ischemic endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, spontaneous target vessel myocardial infarction, or definite stent thrombosis, and the primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 and 5 bleeding up to 3 months. RESULTS: From February 22, 2018, to May 7, 2019, 201 patients were enrolled. All patients underwent PCI for stable CAD. Overall, 98.5% of patients were adherent to prasugrel at 3-month follow-up. The primary ischemic and bleeding endpoints occurred in 1 patient (0.5%). No stent thrombosis events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy following successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation demonstrated feasibility and safety without any stent thrombosis in selected low-risk patients with stable CAD. These findings may help underpin larger randomized controlled studies to evaluate the aspirin-free strategy compared with traditional dual-antiplatelet therapy following PCI. (Acetyl Salicylic Elimination Trial: The ASET Pilot Study [ASET]; NCT03469856).

Association between perivascular inflammation and downstream myocardial perfusion in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

AIMS: To investigate the association between pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT) computed tomography (CT) attenuation derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) by positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: PCAT CT attenuation was measured in proximal segments of all major epicardial coronary vessels of 105 patients with suspected CAD. We evaluated the relationship between PCAT CT attenuation and other quantitative/qualitative CT-derived anatomic parameters with CFR by PET. Overall, the mean age was 60 ± 12 years and 93% had intermediate pre-test probability of obstructive CAD. Obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) was detected in 37 (35.2%) patients and impaired CFR (<2.0) in 32 (30.5%) patients. On a per-vessel analysis (315 vessels), obstructive CAD, non-calcified plaque volume, and PCAT CT attenuation were independently associated with CFR. In patients with coronary calcium score (CCS) <100, those with high-PCAT CT attenuation presented significantly lower CFR values than those with low-PCAT CT attenuation (2.47 ± 0.95 vs. 3.13 ± 0.89, P = 0.003). Among those without obstructive CAD, CFR was significantly lower in patients with high-PCAT CT attenuation (2.51 ± 0.95 vs. 3.02 ± 0.84, P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Coronary perivascular inflammation by CTA was independently associated with downstream myocardial perfusion by PET. In patients with low CCS or without obstructive CAD, CFR was lower in the presence of higher perivascular inflammation. PCAT CT attenuation might help identifying myocardial ischaemia particularly among patients who are traditionally considered non-high risk for future cardiovascular events.

Clinical outcomes and need for intensive care after non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The decision on whether non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients should be admitted to intensive care units (ICU) takes into account several factors including hospital routines. The Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) ICU score was developed to predict complications requiring ICU care post-NSTEMI. METHODS: We described patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of 1263 NSTEMI patients admitted to a private hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from 2014 to 2018. We also aimed to retrospectively identify NSTEMI patients who might not have needed to be admitted to the ICU based on the ACTION ICU risk score. We defined complications requiring ICU care post-NSTEMI as cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, stroke, re-infarction, death, heart block requiring pacemaker placement, respiratory failure, or sepsis. RESULTS: Mean age was 62.3 years and 35.8% were female. A total of 94.6% of NSTEMI patients were admitted to the ICU. Most NSTEMI patients (91.9%) underwent coronary angiography. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 47.1% and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in 10.3%. Complications requiring ICU care occurred in 62 patients (4.9%). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.3%. Overall, 70.4% had an ACTION ICU score ≤ 5. The C-statistics for the ACTION risk score to predict complications was 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.47-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Complications requiring ICU care were infrequent in a cohort of NSTEMI patients who were routinely admitted to the ICU over a 4-year period. The ACTION risk score had low accuracy in the prediction of complications requiring ICU care in our population.