Background The long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of COVID-19 have not been fully explored. Methods This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between February and December 2020. Consecutive patients ≥18 years who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts depending on the nasopharyngeal swab result and clinical status: confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR) and control (without suggestive symptoms and negative RT-PCR). Data were obtained from electronic records, and clinical follow-up was performed at 1-year. The primary outcome was CV death at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included arterial thrombotic events (ATE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and serious cardiac arrhythmias. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated events. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for all baseline characteristics was used for comparing outcomes between groups. A prespecified landmark analysis was performed to assess events during the post-acute phase (31–365 days). Results A total of 4,427 patients were included: 3,578 (80.8%) in the COVID-19 and 849 (19.2%) control cohorts. At one year, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of CV death between the COVID-19 and control cohorts (1.4% vs. 0.8%; HRadj 1.28 [0.56–2.91]; p = 0.555), but there was a higher risk of all-cause death (17.8% vs. 4.0%; HRadj 2.82 [1.99–4.0]; p = 0.001). COVID-19 cohort had higher rates of ATE (2.5% vs. 0.8%, HRadj 2.26 [1.02–4.99]; p = 0.044), VTE (3.7% vs. 0.4%, HRadj 9.33 [2.93–29.70]; p = 0.001), and serious cardiac arrhythmias (2.5% vs. 0.6%, HRadj 3.37 [1.35–8.46]; p = 0.010). During the post-acute phase, there were no significant differences in CV death (0.6% vs. 0.7%; HRadj 0.67 [0.25–1.80]; p = 0.425), but there was a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.028). Re-hospitalization rate was lower in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the control cohort (13.9% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusions At 1-year, patients with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of all-cause death and adverse CV events, including ATE, VTE, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, but not CV death. Study registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04359927.

Background-Manual thrombus aspiration (TA) is effective to reduce the thrombus burden during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of manual TA on stent implantation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results-Population of the EXAMINATION trial (n=1498) was divided into 2 groups according to the use of TA. Immediate angiographic results, primary patient-oriented end point (combination of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) and secondary device-oriented end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), definite/probable stent thrombosis, and major/minor bleeding were evaluated at 2 years. .009) was also present in the TA group compared with the nonthrombus aspiration group. At 2-year follow-up, no differences in clinical end point were observed between groups. Conclusions-Manual TA during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a higher rate of direct stenting, a lower rate of postdilatation, and larger and less stents in comparison with conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Conversely, manual TA had no apparent impact on clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration-http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00828087.(Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:294-300.)

Background. The resting full‐cycle ratio (RFR) is a novel resting index which in contrast to the gold standard (fractional flow reserve (FFR)) does not require maximum hyperemia induction. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the agreement between RFR and FFR with the currently recommended thresholds and to design a hybrid RFR-FFR ischemia detection strategy, allowing a reduction of coronary vasodilator use. Materials and Methods. Patients subjected to invasive physiological study in 9 Spanish centers were prospectively recruited between April 2019 and March 2020. Sensitivity and specificity studies were made to assess diagnostic accuracy between the recommended levels of RFR ≤0.89 and FFR ≤0.80 (primary objective) and to determine the RFR “grey zone” in order to define a hybrid strategy with FFR affording 95% global agreement compared with FFR alone (secondary objective). Results. A total of 380 lesions were evaluated in 311 patients. Significant correlation was observed (R2 = 0.81; P < 0.001 ) between the two techniques, with 79% agreement between RFR ≤ 0.89 and FFR ≤ 0.80 (positive predictive value, 68%, and negative predictive value, 80%). The hybrid RFR-FFR strategy, administering only adenosine in the “grey zone” (RFR: 0.86 to 0.92), exhibited an agreement of over 95% with FFR, with high predictive values (positive predictive value, 91%, and negative predictive value, 92%), reducing the need for vasodilators by 58%. Conclusions. Dichotomous agreement between RFR and FFR with the recommended thresholds is significant but limited. The adoption of a hybrid RFR-FFR strategy affords very high agreement, with minimization of vasodilator use.