The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is now a global pandemic with millions affected and millions more at risk for contracting the infection. The COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, affects multiple organ systems, especially the lungs and heart. Elevation of cardiac biomarkers, particularly high-sensitivity troponin and/or creatine kinase MB, is common in patients with COVID-19 infection. In our review of clinical analyses, we found that in 26 studies including 11,685 patients, the weighted pooled prevalence of acute myocardial injury was 20% (ranged from 5% to 38% depending on the criteria used). The plausible mechanisms of myocardial injury include, 1) hyperinflammation and cytokine storm mediated through pathologic T-cells and monocytes leading to myocarditis, 2) respiratory failure and hypoxemia resulting in damage to cardiac myocytes, 3) down regulation of ACE2 expression and subsequent protective signaling pathways in cardiac myocytes, 4) hypercoagulability and development of coronary microvascular thrombosis, 5) diffuse endothelial injury and 'endotheliitis' in several organs including the heart, and, 6) inflammation and/or stress causing coronary plaque rupture or supply-demand mismatch leading to myocardial ischemia/ infarction. Cardiac biomarkers can be used to aid in diagnosis as well as risk stratification. In patients with elevated hs-troponin, clinical context is important and myocarditis as well as stress induced cardiomyopathy should be considered in the differential, along with type I and type II myocardial infarction. Irrespective of etiology, patients with acute myocardial injury should be prioritized for treatment. Clinical decisions including interventions should be individualized and carefully tailored after thorough review of risks/benefits. Given the complex interplay of SARS-CoV-2 with the cardiovascular system, further investigation into potential mechanisms is needed to guide effective therapies. Randomized trials are urgently needed to investigate treatment modalities to reduce the incidence and mortality associated with COVID-19 related acute myocardial injury.

Background-Prior trials suggest it is safe to defer transfusion at hemoglobin levels above 7-8 g/dL in most patients. Patients with acute coronary syndrome may benefit from higher hemoglobin levels.

Background-Recent reports suggest that off-label use of drug-eluting stents is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unknown. Methods-We analyzed data from 6551 patients in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry according to whether they were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death. Off-label use was defined as use in restenotic lesions, lesions in a bypass graft, left main coronary artery disease, or ostial, bifurcated, or totally occluded lesions, as well as use in patients with a reference-vessel diameter of less than 2.5 mm or greater than 3.75 mm or a lesion length of more than 30 mm. Results-Off-label use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting stents. As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary-artery bypass grafting, and multivessel coronary artery disease. One year after intervention, however, there were no significant differences in the adjusted risk of death or myocardial infarction in patients with drug-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularization was significantly lower among patients with drug-eluting stents. Conclusions-Among patients with off-label indications, the use of drug-eluting stents was not associated with an increased risk of death or myocardial infarction but was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents. These findings support the use of drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. IN 2003, THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRAtion (FDA) approved drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. This decision was based on the results of clinical trials that compared a baremetal stent with a drug-eluting stent in highly selected patients. 1-10 Because of the magnitude of the treatment effect of drug-eluting stents in suppressing the recurrence of lesions, consistent

This consensus document, a summary of the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), appraises the importance of Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries (INOCA). Angina pectoris affects approximately 112 million people globally. Up to 70% of patients undergoing invasive angiography do not have obstructive CAD, more common in women than in men, and a large proportion have INOCA as a cause of their symptoms. INOCA patients present with a wide spectrum of symptoms and signs that are often misdiagnosed as non-cardiac leading to under-diagnosis/investigation and under-treatment. INOCA can result from heterogeneous mechanism including coronary vasospasm and microvascular dysfunction and is not a benign condition. Compared to asymptomatic individuals, INOCA is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events, repeated hospital admissions, as well as impaired quality of life and associated increased health care costs. This consensus document provides a definition of INOCA and guidance to the community on the diagnostic approach and management of INOCA based on existing evidence from research and best available clinical practice; noting gaps in knowledge and potential areas for further investigation.

IMPORTANCE Myocardial ischemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) has been repeatedly associated with impaired survival. However, it is unclear if revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to relieve ischemia improves outcomes compared with medical therapy (MT).OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare the effect of PCI and MT with MT alone exclusively in patients with stable CAD and objectively documented myocardial ischemia on clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Cochrane, and PubMed databases from 1970 to November 2012. Unpublished data were obtained from investigators. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials of PCI and MT vs MT alone for stable coronary artery disease in which stents and statins were used in more than 50% of patients.DATA EXTRACTION For studies in which myocardial ischemia diagnosed by stress testing or fractional flow reserve was required for enrollment, descriptive and quantitative data were extracted from the published report. For studies in which myocardial ischemia was not a requirement for enrollment, authors provided data for only those patients with ischemia determined by stress testing prior to randomization. The outcomes analyzed included death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and angina. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were obtained using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I 2 . RESULTSIn 5 trials enrolling 5286 patients, myocardial ischemia was diagnosed in 4064 patients by exercise stress testing, nuclear or echocardiographic stress imaging, or fractional flow reserve. Follow-up ranged from 231 days to 5 years (median, 5 years). The respective event rates for PCI with MT vs MT alone for death were 6.5% and 7.3% (OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.71-1.16); for nonfatal MI, 9.2% and 7.6% (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.99-1.56]); for unplanned revascularization, 18.3% and 28.4% (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.35-1.17); and for angina, 20.3% and 23.3% (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.57-1.44]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn patients with stable CAD and objectively documented myocardial ischemia, PCI with MT was not associated with a reduction in death, nonfatal MI, unplanned revascularization, or angina compared with MT alone.

No abstract

T hirty-day readmission rates are considered a quality performance measure. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports 30-day readmission rates for cardiovascular diagnoses and procedures such as acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; as a pilot project between 2013 and 2014), and coronary artery bypass grafting. , bleeding (7.6%), and peripheral vascular disease (4.3%) were the most common noncardiac causes, whereas heart failure (22.5%) and arrhythmias (6.6%) were the most common cardiac causes of readmission. Median length of stay and cost of readmissions were 4 days (interquartile range, 2-7 days) and $8302 (interquartile range, $5229-16 021), respectively. Conclusions-Thirty-day readmissions after TAVR are frequent and are related to baseline comorbidities, TAVR access site, and post-procedure complications. Awareness of these predictors can help identify and target high-risk patients for interventions to reduce readmissions and costs. Key Words: aortic stenosis ◼ costs and cost analysis ◼ length of stay ◼ readmission ◼ rehospitalization ◼ transcatheter aortic valve implantation ◼ transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Patients with CKD or ESRD have worse in-hospital outcomes after TAVR. AKI is associated with higher in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing TAVR and the incidence of AKI has not declined over the years.