COVID‐19 is a new viral infection that has a significant impact on global health and economy. Because of its rapid spread worldwide, it may influence the prognosis of other medical conditions, such as ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We report a case of a 58‐year female patient admitted with an infero‐posterior STEMI on the background of recently positive COVID‐19 swab. Reperfusion was attempted through primary PCI but unfortunately failed to restore coronary blood flow due to massive thrombotic burden despite several attempts of balloon dilatation and aspiration thrombectomy. She sadly died later on because of hemodynamic deterioration. This scenario raises concerns about Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETS) which might potentially have propagated inflammation and thrombosis via platelets' aggregation leading to enhanced coagulopathy and massive coronary thrombosis. Therefore, we suggest primary PCI as the first‐choice of revascularization in patients with combined COVID‐19 and STEMI. Additionally, we emphasize on the importance of using the potent new generation P2Y12 inhibitors along with GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors in every STEMI patient with COVID‐19 to achieve favorable conditions for primary PCI as well as favorable outcomes after stent implantation.

Background In this case report, we describe the trajectory of recovery of a young, healthy patient diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome. The purpose of this case report is to highlight the potential role of intensive care unit recovery or follow-up clinics for patients surviving acute hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019. Case presentation Our patient was a 27-year-old Caucasian woman with a past medical history of asthma transferred from a community hospital to our medical intensive care unit for acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to bilateral pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen, 180). On day 2 of her intensive care unit admission, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Her clinical status gradually improved, and she was extubated on intensive care unit day 5. She had a negative test result for coronavirus disease 2019 twice with repeated reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction before being discharged to home after 10 days in the intensive care unit. Two weeks after intensive care unit discharge, the patient returned to our outpatient intensive care unit recovery clinic. At follow-up, the patient endorsed significant fatigue and exhaustion with difficulty walking, minor issues with sleep disruption, and periods of memory loss. She scored 10/12 on the short performance physical battery, indicating good physical function. She did not have signs of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder through self-report questionnaires. Clinically, she was considered at low risk of developing post–intensive care syndrome, but she required follow-up services to assist in navigating the healthcare system, addressing remaining symptoms, and promoting return to her pre–coronavirus disease 2019 societal role. Conclusion We present this case report to suggest that patients surviving coronavirus disease 2019 with subsequent development of acute respiratory distress syndrome will require more intense intensive care unit recovery follow-up. Patients with a higher degree of acute illness who also have pre-existing comorbidities and those of older age who survive mechanical ventilation for coronavirus disease 2019 will require substantial post–intensive care unit care to mitigate and treat post–intensive care syndrome, promote reintegration into the community, and improve quality of life.

Management of heavily calcified lesions during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often associated with high incidence of complications and long-term adverse outcomes. There is growing evidence of the efficacy of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in de novo coronary lesion preparation; however, little experience has been documented within freshly deployed stent underexpansion. We report a 66-year-old male with a marked stent underexpansion despite extensive lesion preparation due to severe underlying calcification. The stent was resistant to balloon postdilatation; therefore, IVL was applied, resulting in excellent stent expansion. IVL could be considered for treating acute stent underexpansion caused by severe underlying calcification.