No abstract

Background The implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection on outcomes after invasive therapeutic strategies among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well studied. Hypothesis To assess the outcomes of COVID‐19 patients presenting with AMI undergoing an early invasive treatment strategy. Methods This study was a cross‐sectional, retrospective analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database including all patients presenting with a recorded diagnosis of AMI (ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and non‐ST elevation MI). COVID‐19 positive patients with AMI were stratified into one of four groups: (1a) patients who had a coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 3 days of their AMI; (1b) PCI within 3 days of AMI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within 30 days; (2a) coronary angiogram without PCI and without CABG within 30 days; and (2b) coronary angiogram with CABG within 30 days. The main outcomes were respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, prolonged length of stay, rehospitalization, and death. Results There were 10 506 COVID‐19 positive patients with a diagnosis of AMI. COVID‐19 positive patients with PCI had 8.2 times higher odds of respiratory failure than COVID‐19 negative patients ( p = .001). The odds of prolonged length of stay were 1.7 times higher in COVID‐19 patients who underwent PCI ( p = .024) and 1.9 times higher in patients who underwent coronary angiogram followed by CABG ( p = .001). Conclusion These data demonstrate that COVID‐19 positive patients with AMI undergoing early invasive coronary angiography had worse outcomes than COVID‐19 negative patients.

Introduction: Left and right atrial volume indices (LAVI and RAVI) are markers of cardiac remodeling. LAVI and RAVI are associated with worse outcomes in other cardiac conditions. This study aimed to determine the association of LAVI and RAVI with survival time post-cardiac arrest. Hypothesis: Atrial volumes are associated with survival time post-cardiac arrest. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective study of patients with a cardiac arrest event during index hospitalization from 2014-2018. LAVI was calculated using the biplane Simpson’s method, while RAVI was calculated using a single plane summation in the 4-chamber view. Patients were further stratified into either having a Vfib/pulseless VT (pVT) event or a PEA arrest/asystole event. Survival time was measured in days from event to death date. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to evaluate differences in survival time for patients based on mean LAVI and RAVI. Results: Of 305 patients studied (64 +/- 14 years, 37% female (112 out of 305)), 162 had a reliable LAVI measurement with a mean of 34.1 mL/m 2 (SD=15.8) and 163 had a reliable RAVI measurement with a mean of 25.1 mL/m 2 (SD=15.5). In patients who had sustained a VFib/pVT event, those with reduced LAVI (p=0.045) and RAVI (p=0.041) values below the mean had significantly improved survival time. No association was found in the PEA/asystole subgroup. KM plots of patient survival for both LAVI and RAVI compared to mean are presented in figures 1a and 1b. Conclusion: Among patients presenting with Vifb/pVT arrest, increased LAVI and RAVI were associated with decreased survival time. More studies are needed to better prognosticate cardiac arrest using atrial volumes.