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.

PA obstructive index of more than 50% and RV/LV ratio >1.5 are useful diagnostic criteria for severe PE and poor patient outcome.

Aims Cardiomyopathies comprise a heterogeneous group of diseases, often of genetic origin. We assessed the current practice of genetic counselling and testing in the prospective European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme Cardiomyopathy Registry. Methods and results A total of 3208 adult patients from 69 centres in 18 countries were enrolled. Genetic counselling was performed in 60.8% of all patients [75.4% in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), 39.2% in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), 70.8% in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), and 49.2% in restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM), P < 0.001]. Comparing European geographical areas, genetic counselling was performed from 42.4% to 83.3% (P < 0.001). It was provided by a cardiologist (85.3%), geneticist (15.1%), genetic counsellor (11.3%), or a nurse (7.5%) (P < 0.001). Genetic testing was performed in 37.3% of all patients (48.8% in HCM, 18.6% in DCM, 55.6% in ARVC, and 43.6% in RCM, P < 0.001). Index patients with genetic testing were younger at diagnosis and had more familial disease, family history of sudden cardiac death, or implanted cardioverter defibrillators but less co-morbidities than those not tested (P < 0.001 for each comparison). At least one disease-causing variant was found in 41.7% of index patients with genetic testing (43.3% in HCM, 33.3% in DCM, 51.4% in ARVC, and 42.9% in RCM, P = 0.13). Conclusions This is the first detailed report on the real-life practice of genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies in Europe. Genetic counselling and testing were performed in a substantial proportion of patients but less often than recommended by European guidelines and much less in DCM than in HCM and ARVC, despite evidence for genetic background.

No abstract

No abstract