Objectives To assess changes in characteristics and management among ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods Our prospective, monocentric study enrolled all STEMI patients who underwent PPCI during the COVID‐19 outbreak ( n = 83). This cohort was first compared with a previous cohort of STEMI patients (2008–2017, n = 1,552 patients) and was then dichotomized into a non‐COVID‐19 group ( n = 72) and COVID‐19 group ( n = 11). Results In comparison with the pre‐outbreak period, patients during the outbreak period were older (59.6 ± 12.9 vs. 62.6 ± 12.2, p = .03) with a delayed seek to care (mean delay first symptoms‐balloon 3.8 ± 3 vs. .7.4 ± 7.7, p < .001) resulting in a two‐fold higher in‐hospital mortality (non COVID‐19 4.3% vs. COVID‐19 8.4%, p = .07). Among the 83 STEMI patients admitted during the outbreak period, 11 patients were infected by COVID‐19. Higher biological markers of inflammation (C‐reactive protein: 28 ± 39 vs. 98 ± 97 mg/L, p = .04), of fibrinolysis (D‐dimer: 804 ± 1,500 vs. 3,128 ± 2,458 μg/L, p = .02), and antiphospholipid antibodies in four cases were observed in the COVID‐19 group. In this group, angiographic data also differed: a thrombotic myocardial infarction nonatherosclerotic coronary occlusion (MINOCA) was observed in 11 cases (1.4% vs. 54.5%, p < .001) and associated with higher post‐procedure distal embolization (30.6% vs. 72.7%, p = .007). The in hospital mortality was significantly higher in the COVID‐19 group (5.6% vs. 27.3%, p = .016). Conclusion The COVID‐19 outbreak implies deep changes in the etiopathogenesis and therapeutic management of STEMI patients with COVID‐19. The impact on early and long‐term outcomes of systemic inflammation and hypercoagulability in this specific population is warranted.

Etiopathogenesis of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction secondary to CE is diverse ranging from cardiac to systemic disease, and patient long-term survival is worse than expected according to the baseline cardiovascular risk.

To the Editor: Prone position ventilation has been shown to improve oxygenation and survival in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [1]. Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, prone positioning (PP) is of crucial importance to treat severe ARDS patients [2]. Nevertheless, the high number of ICU admissions quickly overwhelmed the ability of the daily ICU team to place patients in PP, a complex and time-consuming maneuver. Thus, we created a dedicated medical team with reassigned volunteers to cope with the large number of patients requiring PP. PP Team consisted of five volunteers: a senior medical non-intensivist physician placed at the patient's head to secure the endotracheal tube and four medical fellows or medical students placed at each side of the bed. For patients treated with VV-ECMO, a supplementary physician was added to secure the lines. Since PP is a complex procedure and has many potential adverse events requiring adequate and well-trained staff, volunteers received previously a theoretical training and a hands-on ad hoc training session. PP teams followed the guidelines for PP placement [1]. This retrospective observational study was performed in our extended ICU (from 22 to 46 beds), from the first day of deployment of PPT (March 23 to April 23, 2020). The main characteristics and outcomes of prone positioned patients (n = 63) are presented in Table 1.

Objective The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with severe aortic stenosis presenting with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and planned for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to study the variables influencing their prognosis. Methods Our retrospective study included 801 patients planned for TAVI in our center. Seven hundred and fifty‐six underwent TAVI and were categorized according to ADHF as the initial clinical presentation into two groups: ADHF group (n = 261) and no‐ADHF group (n = 495). Pre as well as periprocedural outcomes and 1 year mortality were analyzed. Results Among the patients planned for the TAVI procedure, 45 patients remained untreated: 35 patients died while waiting to undergo TAVI which represented 20% of all deaths in our study, ADHF was observed in 23 of 45 (51%) these untreated patients. The 1‐year all‐cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ADHF group versus the no‐ADHF group (27% vs. 15%, p < .0001). In multivariate analysis, male gender (odds ratio [OR] =2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37–4.57, p = .03), body mass index <25 kg/m2 (OR = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.51–5.04, p = .0009), and logistic EuroSCORE II ≥20% (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.56–5.94, p = .001) were associated with a higher 1‐year mortality in the ADHF group. Conclusion The patients eligible for TAVI presenting with ADHF were associated with a higher mortality for both: while on the waiting list for TAVI as well as at 1‐year follow‐up and thus asking for clearer criteria to prioritize action in this high‐risk TAVI patients.

No abstract