Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Background The fear of contagion during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have potentially refrained patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from accessing the emergency system, with subsequent impact on mortality. Objectives The ISACS-STEMI COVID-19 registry aims to estimate the true impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment and outcome of patients with STEMI treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), with identification of “at-risk” patient cohorts for failure to present or delays to treatment. Methods This retrospective registry was performed in European high-volume PPCI centers and assessed patients with STEMI treated with PPPCI in March/April 2019 and 2020. Main outcomes are the incidences of PPCI, delayed treatment, and in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 6,609 patients underwent PPCI in 77 centers, located in 18 countries. In 2020, during the pandemic, there was a significant reduction in PPCI as compared with 2019 (incidence rate ratio: 0.811; 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 0.84; p < 0.0001). The heterogeneity among centers was not related to the incidence of death due to COVID-19. A significant interaction was observed for patients with arterial hypertension, who were less frequently admitted in 2020 than in 2019. Furthermore, the pandemic was associated with a significant increase in door-to-balloon and total ischemia times, which may have contributed to the higher mortality during the pandemic. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impact on the treatment of patients with STEMI, with a 19% reduction in PPCI procedures, especially among patients suffering from hypertension, and a longer delay to treatment, which may have contributed to the increased mortality during the pandemic. (Primary Angioplasty for STEMI During COVID-19 Pandemic [ISACS-STEMI COVID-19] Registry; NCT04412655 ).

AimsPatients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI.Methods and resultsABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) −1.06 (−1.96, −0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns).ConclusionStenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Background-The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) among more generalized "real-world" patients than those enrolled in pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial. We sought to perform a meta-analysis of DES studies to estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end points, particularly for non-Food and Drug Administration-labeled indications. Methods and Results-Comparative Conclusions-InRCTs, no significant differences were observed in the long-term rates of death or myocardial infarction after DES or BMS use for either off-label or on-label indications. In real-world nonrandomized observational studies with greater numbers of patients but the admitted potential for selection bias and residual confounding, DES use was associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction. Both RCTs and observational studies demonstrated marked and comparable reductions in target vessel revascularization with DES compared with BMS. These data in aggregate suggest that DES are safe and efficacious in both on-label and off-label use but highlight differences between RCT and observational data comparing DES and BMS. (Circulation. 2009;119:3198-3206.)

The minor risk of ST and MI within 15 months after implantation of DES seems unlikely to outweigh the benefit of these stents.

No abstract

Aim We sought to describe the contemporary annual incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMICS), the proportion of patients developing CS following ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and other temporal changes in AMICS in Denmark between 2010 and 2017. Methods and results Medical records of patients suspected of having AMICS during 2010–2017 were reviewed to identify consecutive patients with AMICS in a cohort corresponding to two‐thirds of the Danish population. Due to changes in recruitment area over the study period, population‐based incidence could only be calculated from 2012 to 2017. A total of 1716 patients with AMICS were identified and an increase in the annual incidence was observed, from a nadir 65.3 per million person‐years in 2013 to 80.0 per million person‐years in 2017 (P‐value for trend < 0.001). This trend corresponded to an increase in patients with non‐STEMI and a decrease in patients developing CS after STEMI (10.0–6.6%, P‐value for trend < 0.001) Also, mean arterial blood pressure at the time of AMICS was lower (63 ± 11 mmHg to 61 ± 13 mmHg, P‐value for trend = 0.001) and the frequency of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 30% increased (61.8%–71.4%, P‐value for trend = 0.004). The annual 30‐day mortality during the study period remained unchanged at about 50%. Conclusion The incidence rate of AMICS increased in the Danish population between 2012 and 2017. Fewer patients with STEMI developed CS, and haemodynamic severity of CS increased during the study period; however, survival rates remained unchanged.

FFR demonstrates a continuous and independent relationship with subsequent outcomes, modulated by medical therapy versus revascularization. Lesions with lower FFR values receive larger absolute benefits from revascularization. Measurement of FFR immediately after stenting also shows an inverse gradient of risk, likely from residual diffuse disease. An FFR-guided revascularization strategy significantly reduces events and increases freedom from angina with fewer procedures than an anatomy-based strategy.