Background The fear of contagion during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have potentially refrained patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from accessing the emergency system, with subsequent impact on mortality. Objectives The ISACS-STEMI COVID-19 registry aims to estimate the true impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment and outcome of patients with STEMI treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), with identification of “at-risk” patient cohorts for failure to present or delays to treatment. Methods This retrospective registry was performed in European high-volume PPCI centers and assessed patients with STEMI treated with PPPCI in March/April 2019 and 2020. Main outcomes are the incidences of PPCI, delayed treatment, and in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 6,609 patients underwent PPCI in 77 centers, located in 18 countries. In 2020, during the pandemic, there was a significant reduction in PPCI as compared with 2019 (incidence rate ratio: 0.811; 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 0.84; p < 0.0001). The heterogeneity among centers was not related to the incidence of death due to COVID-19. A significant interaction was observed for patients with arterial hypertension, who were less frequently admitted in 2020 than in 2019. Furthermore, the pandemic was associated with a significant increase in door-to-balloon and total ischemia times, which may have contributed to the higher mortality during the pandemic. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impact on the treatment of patients with STEMI, with a 19% reduction in PPCI procedures, especially among patients suffering from hypertension, and a longer delay to treatment, which may have contributed to the increased mortality during the pandemic. (Primary Angioplasty for STEMI During COVID-19 Pandemic [ISACS-STEMI COVID-19] Registry; NCT04412655 ).

Background and aims SARS-Cov-2 predisposes patients to thrombotic complications, due to excessive inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, and coagulation/fibrinolysis disturbances. The aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of SARS-CoV-2 positivity among STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods We selected SARS-CoV-2 positive patients included in the ISACS-STEMI COVID-19, a retrospective multicenter European registry including 6609 STEMI patients treated with PPCI from March 1 until April 30, 2019 and 2020. As a reference group, we randomly sampled 5 SARS-Cov-2 negative patients per each SARS-CoV-2 positive patient, individually matched for age, sex, and hospital/geographic area. Study endpoints were in-hospital mortality, definite stent thrombosis, heart failure. Results Our population is represented by 62 positive SARS-CoV-2 positive patients who were compared with a matched population of 310 STEMI patients. No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics or modality of access to the PCI center. In the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, the culprit lesion was more often located in the RCA ( p < 0.001). Despite similar pre and postprocedural TIMI flow, we observed a trend in higher use of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors and significantly higher use of thrombectomy in the SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with a remarkably higher in hospital mortality (29 % vs 5.5 %, p < 0.001), definite in-stent thrombosis (8.1 % vs 1.6 %, p = 0.004) and heart failure (22.6 % vs 10.6 %, p = 0.001) that was confirmed after adjustment for confounding factors. Conclusions Our study showed that among STEMI patients, SARS-CoV-2 positivity is associated with larger thrombus burden, a remarkably higher mortality but also higher rates of in-stent thrombosis and heart failure.

ObjectiveThe initial data of the International Study on Acute Coronary Syndromes - ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction COVID-19 showed in Europe a remarkable reduction in primary percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and higher in-hospital mortality during the initial phase of the pandemic as compared with the prepandemic period. The aim of the current study was to provide the final results of the registry, subsequently extended outside Europe with a larger inclusion period (up to June 2020) and longer follow-up (up to 30 days).MethodsThis is a retrospective multicentre registry in 109 high-volume primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) centres from Europe, Latin America, South-East Asia and North Africa, enrolling 16 674 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPPCI in March/June 2019 and 2020. The main study outcomes were the incidence of PPCI, delayed treatment (ischaemia time >12 hours and door-to-balloon >30 min), in-hospital and 30-day mortality.ResultsIn 2020, during the pandemic, there was a significant reduction in PPCI as compared with 2019 (incidence rate ratio 0.843, 95% CI 0.825 to 0.861, p<0.0001). This reduction was significantly associated with age, being higher in older adults (>75 years) (p=0.015), and was not related to the peak of cases or deaths due to COVID-19. The heterogeneity among centres was high (p<0.001). Furthermore, the pandemic was associated with a significant increase in door-to-balloon time (40 (25–70) min vs 40 (25–64) min, p=0.01) and total ischaemia time (225 (135–410) min vs 196 (120–355) min, p<0.001), which may have contributed to the higher in-hospital (6.5% vs 5.3%, p<0.001) and 30-day (8% vs 6.5%, p=0.001) mortality observed during the pandemic.ConclusionPercutaneous revascularisation for STEMI was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a 16% reduction in PPCI procedures, especially among older patients (about 20%), and longer delays to treatment, which may have contributed to the increased in-hospital and 30-day mortality during the pandemic.Trial registration numberNCT04412655.

Background: Sutureless-surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative for treating aortic stenosis, which facilitates a minimally invasive approach. While some studies have compared the early outcomes of SU-SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), most data were obtained in high-risk patients and/or limited to in-hospital outcomes. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes following SU-SAVR and TAVR in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Methods: A total of 806 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II <4%) patients underwent TAVR or SU-SAVR between 2011 and 2020 in 2 centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed and identified 171 pairs with similar characteristics that were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) were collected. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.9% (1.3%–2.5%) in both SU-SAVR and TAVR groups ( P =0.85). There were no statistically significant differences regarding in-hospital mortality (SU-SAVR: 4.1%, TAVR: 1.8%, P =0.199) and stroke (SU-SAVR: 2.3%, TAVR: 2.9%, P =0.736), but SU-SAVR recipients exhibited higher rates of bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients ( P <0.001), and a lower rate of pacemaker implantation ( P =0.011). After a median follow-up of 2 (1–3) years, there were no differences between groups in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.52–1.82], P =0.936) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32–2.15], P =0.708), but SU-SAVR was associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 5.38 [95% CI, 1.88–15.38], P =0.002). Conclusions: In low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes (except for conduction disturbances) and valve hemodynamics, compared with SU-SAVR. Although similar mortality and stroke rates were observed at 2-year follow-up, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher among SU-SAVR patients. These results may contribute to reinforce TAVR over SU-SAVR for the majority of such patients.

No abstract