Introduction and objectives The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. Results Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Conclusions The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Second-generation DESs have provided better platforms, new drugs, and new polymers, with the objective of improve deliverability and even safety of these devices. Among them, Background-Patients with coronary total occlusions are at especially high risk for restenosis and new revascularizations.Sirolimus-eluting stents dramatically improved the clinical outcome of this subset of patients in randomized trials, but other drug-eluting stents, mainly the everolimus-eluting stent (currently the most frequently used stent), have not yet been evaluated in patients with coronary total occlusions. The objective was to compare the second-generation everolimuseluting stent with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary total occlusions. Methods and Results-A total of 207 patients with coronary total occlusions and estimated time since occlusion >2 weeks were randomized to everolimus-or sirolimus-eluting stent. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 9-month angiographic follow-up (noninferiority trial). Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 12 months. In-stent late loss at 9 months was 0.29±0.60 versus 0.13±0.69 mm in patients allocated to sirolimus-and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively. The observed difference in in-stent late loss between both groups was -0.16 mm (95% confidence interval, 0.04 to -0.36 mm; P for noninferiority <0.01). The rate of binary angiographic restenosis was 10.8% and 9.1% in patients allocated to sirolimus-and everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P=0.709), whereas the rate of vessel reocclusion was 3.2% and 1.1%, respectively (P=0.339). At 12 months, the rate of major adverse events was 15.9% versus 11.1% with sirolimusand everolimus-eluting stent, respectively (P=0.335), and probable or definitive stent thrombosis occurred in 3.0% and 0.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.075). Conclusions-In