There is limited information regarding clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this multicenter retrospective study, we reviewed charts of patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 infection and STEMI to a total of 4 hospitals spanning Italy, Lithuania, Spain and Iraq from February 1, 2020 to April 15, 2020. A total of 78 patients were included in this study, 49 (63%) of whom were men, with a median age of 65 [58, 71] years, and high comorbidity burden. During hospitalization, 8 (10%) developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 14 (18%) required mechanical ventilation. 19 (24%) patients were treated with primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and 59 (76%) were treated with fibrinolytic therapy. 13 (17%) patients required cardiac resuscitation, and 9 (11%) died. For the 19 patients treated with primary PCI, 8 (42%) required intubation and 8 (42%) required cardiac resuscitation; stent thrombosis occurred in 4 patients (21%). A total of 5 patients (26%) died during hospitalization. 50 (85%) of the 59 patients initially treated with fibrinolytic therapy had successful fibrinolysis. The median time to reperfusion was 27 minutes [20, 34]. Hemorrhagic stroke occurred in 5 patients (9%). Six patients (10%) required invasive mechanical ventilation; 5 (9%) required cardiac resuscitation, and 4 (7%) died. In conclusion, this is the largest case series to-date of COVID-19 positive patients presenting with STEMI and spans 4 countries. We found a high rate of stent thrombosis, indicating a possible need to adapt STEMI management for COVID-19 patients.

Background:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has had a major impact on the behavior of patients, as well as on the delivery of healthcare services. With older and more medically vulnerable people tending to stay at home to avoid contracting the virus, it is unclear how the behavior of people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has changed. The aim of this study was to determine if delays in presentation and healthcare service delivery for AMI exist during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period a year prior. Methods:In this single-center, retrospective study, we evaluated patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) during early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020 to April 20, 2020 compared to patients admitted with same diagnosis during the same period a year prior.Results: There were 30 and 62 patients who presented with NSTE-MI in the pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively. The median pain-to-door time was significantly larger during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic era (1,885 (880, 5,732) vs. 606 (388, 944) min, P < 0.0001). There was a significant delay in door-toreperfusion time during the pandemic with a median time of 332 (182, 581) vs. 194 (92, 329) min (P = 0.0371). There were 24 (80%) and 25 (42%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in pandemic and pre-pandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0006). There were 47 and 60 patients who presented with STEMI during the pandemic timeframe of study and pre-pandemic timeframe, respectively. The median pain-to-door time during the pandemic was significantly larger than that of the pre-pandemic (620 (255, 1,500) vs. 349 (146, 659) min, P = 0.0141). There were 22 (47%) and 14 (24%) patients who presented after 12 h of pain onset in the pandemic and prepandemic eras, respectively (P = 0.0127). There was not a significant delay in door-to-reperfusion time (P = 0.9833). There were no differences in in-hospital death, stroke, or length of hospitalization between early and late presenters, as well as between pandemic and pre-pandemic eras. Conclusions:In conclusion, this study found that patients waited significantly longer during the pandemic to seek medical treatment for AMI compared to before the pandemic, and that pandemic-specific protocols may delay revascularization for NSTEMI patients. These findings resulted in more than a threefold increase from the onset of symptoms to revascularization increasing the risks for future complications such as left ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular death. Efforts should be made to increase patients' awareness regarding consequences of delayed presentation, and to find a balance between hospital evaluation strategies and goals of minimizing total ischemic time.

Dysglycemia, in this survey defined as impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or type 2 diabetes, is common in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. This European survey investigated dysglycemia screening and risk factor management of patients with CAD in relation to standards of European guidelines for cardiovascular subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The European Society of Cardiology's European Observational Research Programme (ESC EORP) European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EUROASPIRE) V (2016-2017) included 8,261 CAD patients, aged 18-80 years, from 27 countries. If the glycemic state was unknown, patients underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and measurement of glycated hemoglobin A 1c. Lifestyle, risk factors, and pharmacological management were investigated. RESULTS A total of 2,452 patients (29.7%) had known diabetes. OGTT was performed in 4,440 patients with unknown glycemic state, of whom 41.1% were dysglycemic. Without the OGTT, 30% of patients with type 2 diabetes and 70% of those with IGT would not have been detected. The presence of dysglycemia almost doubled from that selfreported to the true proportion after screening. Only approximately one-third of all coronary patients had completely normal glucose metabolism. Of patients with known diabetes, 31% had been advised to attend a diabetes clinic, and only 24% attended. Only 58% of dysglycemic patients were prescribed all cardioprotective drugs, and use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (3%) or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (1%) was small. CONCLUSIONS Urgent action is required for both screening and management of patients with CAD and dysglycemia, in the expectation of a substantial reduction in risk of further cardiovascular events and in complications of diabetes, as well as longer life expectancy.

Accumulating evidence suggests that influenza and influenza-like illnesses can act as a trigger for acute myocardial infarction. Despite these unprecedented times providers should not overlook acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines, but may choose to modify the recommended approach in situations with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 disease. In this document, we suggest recommendations as to how to triage patients diagnosed with ACSs and provide with algorithms of how to manage the patients and decide the appropriate treatment options in the era of COVID-19 pandemic. We also address the inpatient logistics and discharge to follow-up considerations for the function of already established ACS network during the pandemic.