No abstract

Background Published data suggest worse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and concurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Mechanisms remain unclear. Objectives The purpose of this study was to report the demographics, angiographic findings, and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 ACS patients and compare these with pre–COVID-19 cohorts. Methods From March 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020, data from 55 international centers were entered into a prospective, COVID-ACS Registry. Patients were COVID-19 positive (or had a high index of clinical suspicion) and underwent invasive coronary angiography for suspected ACS. Outcomes were in-hospital major cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, re–myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or stent thrombosis). Results were compared with national pre–COVID-19 databases (MINAP [Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project] 2019 and BCIS [British Cardiovascular Intervention Society] 2018 to 2019). Results In 144 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 121 non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients, symptom-to-admission times were significantly prolonged (COVID-STEMI vs. BCIS: median 339.0 min vs. 173.0 min; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS vs. MINAP: 417.0 min vs. 295.0 min; p = 0.012). Mortality in COVID-ACS patients was significantly higher than BCIS/MINAP control subjects in both subgroups (COVID-STEMI: 22.9% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001; COVID NSTE-ACS: 6.6% vs. 1.2%; p < 0.001), which remained following multivariate propensity analysis adjusting for comorbidities (STEMI subgroup odds ratio: 3.33 [95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 5.42]). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 20.1% of COVID-STEMI patients versus 8.7% of BCIS patients (p < 0.001). Conclusions In this multicenter international registry, COVID-19–positive ACS patients presented later and had increased in-hospital mortality compared with a pre–COVID-19 ACS population. Excessive rates of and mortality from cardiogenic shock were major contributors to the worse outcomes in COVID-19 positive STEMI patients.

BackgroundPrognosis in pulmonary hypertension (PH) is related to right ventricular (RV) function. Quantification of RV mechanics may offer additive value. The objective of our study is to determine the feasibility and clinical and prognostic value of RV strain analysis by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) based feature tracking (FT) in PH.MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 116 patients (age 52.2 ± 12 years, 73.6 % women) referred to CMR for PH evaluation who underwent right heart catheterization within 1 month. Using dedicated FT software, peak global longitudinal and circumferential RV strain and strain rates (GLS, GCS, GLSR, and GCSR, respectively) were quantified from standard cine images. Using multivariate regression analysis, we evaluated the associations of strain with a composite endpoint of death, lung transplantation, or functional class deterioration.ResultsRV strain analysis was feasible in 110 (95 %) patients. Patients were classified into: Group A (no PH, normal right ventricular ejection fraction [RVEF]; n = 17), Group B (PH, normal RVEF; n = 26), or Group C (PH, abnormal RVEF; n = 67). All strain and strain rate values were reduced in Group C. Furthermore, GCSR was significantly reduced in Group B (-0.92 [-1.0/-0.7]; p < 0.001) compared to Group A (-1.12 [-1.3/-0.9]; p < 0.001). After adjustment for six clinically meaningful covariates, GLS (hazard ratio 1.06; p = 0.026), GLSR (hazard ratio 2.52; p = 0.04), and GCSR (hazard ratio 4.5; p = 0.01) were independently associated with the composite endpoint. GCSR successfully discriminated patients with and without events (p = 0.01).ConclusionsQuantification of RV strain with CMR-FT is feasible in the majority of patients, correlates with disease severity, and is independently associated with poor outcomes in PH.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12968-016-0258-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. Methods and results A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID &gt; 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)]. Conclusions The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.