Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes over a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. Methods: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy (INV) added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy (CON). Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as pre-specified in the trial protocol. Results: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23 % women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% diabetes, and median EF 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued over a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 non-cardiovascular deaths and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate 12.7% in INV, 13.4% in CON; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.18). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% vs. 8.6%, adjusted HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of non-cardiovascular mortality (5.6% vs. 4.4%, adjusted HR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.08-1.91) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. Conclusions: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy over a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04894877; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894877.

COVID-19-induced latent relapsing hypercoagulable state in the absence of persistent viral infection.

Hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 infection is already a known fact. But in this article, we have discussed a unique case where the patient had suffered from relapsing thrombus formation. This report describes the case of a patient who presented with chronic coronavirus disease 2019-induced recurrent thrombi refractory to multiple antithrombotic regimens because of multiple recurrent inflammatory flares without any evidence of chronic persistent viral infection. The patient was treated with anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory medications. Still, he had repeated episodes of right ventricular thrombus. Coronavirus disease 2019 can provoke a severe relapsing hypercoagulable state without evidence of persisting viral infection. Rebound inflammatory flares rather than viral recurrence may play a trigger.

COVID-19 Myocarditis: A Case Report, Overview of Diagnosis and Treatment.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), emerged in Wuhan, China, and rapidly led to a global pandemic that affected 213 countries, more than 5.8 million cases, and 360,000 deaths worldwide as of May 28, 2020. The United States currently has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world and contributes to nearly a third of the global death rate. The prevalence of COVID myocarditis is unclear but generally considered rare, with estimates up to 7% of COVID-related deaths. However, these patients suffered catastrophic worsening disease with respiratory compromise requiring intubation and often death. We report the case of a patient with COVID-19-induced myocarditis who was successfully treated with dexamethasone and review the literature.

Cardiogenic shock complicating multisystem inflammatory syndrome following COVID-19 infection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: With the high prevalence of COVID-19 infections worldwide, the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) is becoming an increasingly recognized entity. This syndrome presents in patients several weeks after infection with COVID-19 and is associated with thrombosis, elevated inflammatory markers, hemodynamic compromise and cardiac dysfunction. Treatment is often with steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). The pathologic basis of myocardial injury in MIS-A, however, is not well characterized. In our case report, we obtained endomyocardial biopsy that revealed a pattern of myocardial injury similar to that found in COVID-19 cardiac specimens. CASE PRESENTATION: A 26-year-old male presented with fevers, chills, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea 5 weeks after his COVID-19 infection. His SARS-CoV-2 PCR was negative and IgG was positive, consistent with prior infection. He was found to be in cardiogenic shock with biventricular failure, requiring inotropes and diuretics. Given concern for acute fulminant myocarditis, an endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed, showing an inflammatory infiltrate consisting predominantly of interstitial macrophages with scant T lymphocytes. The histologic pattern was similar to that of cardiac specimens from COVID-19 patients, helping rule out myocarditis as the prevailing diagnosis. His case was complicated by persistent hypoxemia, and a computed tomography scan revealed pulmonary emboli. He received IVIg, steroids, and anticoagulation with rapid recovery of biventricular function. CONCLUSIONS: MIS-A should be considered as the diagnosis in patients presenting several weeks after COVID-19 infection with severe inflammation and multi-organ involvement. In our case, EMB facilitated identification of MIS-A and guided therapy. The patient's biventricular function recovered with IVIg and steroids.

Saddle pulmonary embolism and clot in transit in COVID-19 infection: a case report of catastrophic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a coagulopathy favouring thrombosis over bleeding that imparts a poor prognosis. Clot in transit (CIT) is considered a rare entity and the most severe form of venous thromboembolism (VTE), carrying a higher mortality than isolated pulmonary embolism (PE). The incidence of this phenomenon in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown and likely under-recognized. CASE SUMMARY: During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City, a 70-year-old Hispanic female presented with syncope due to a saddle PE further complicated by a highly mobile CIT. Polymerase chain reaction was positive for COVID-19 infection, however, there was no evidence of lung parenchymal involvement or hyper-inflammation. Based on consensus from a multidisciplinary team, aspiration thrombectomy was attempted to treat this extreme case of VTE, however, the patient died during the procedure. DISCUSSION: This case raises awareness to the most catastrophic form of VTE, presenting in an early phase of COVID-19 infection without the typical hyper-inflammation and severe lung injury associated with development of COVID-related coagulopathy. It also serves to inform on the critical role echocardiography has in the comprehensive evaluation and re-evaluation of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the importance of a multidisciplinary organized approach in clinical decision-making for this complex and poorly understood disease and its sequelae.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI care: An expanded analysis from the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic migitation measures on of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care. BACKGROUND: We previously reported a 38% decline in cardiac catheterization activations during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures. This study extends our early observations using a larger sample of STEMI programs representative of different US regions with the inclusion of more contemporary data. METHODS: Data from 18 hospitals or healthcare systems in the US from January 2019 to April 2020 were collecting including number activations for STEMI, the number of activations leading to angiography and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), and average door to balloon (D2B) times. Two periods, January 2019-February 2020 and March-April 2020, were defined to represent periods before (BC) and after (AC) initiation of pandemic mitigation measures, respectively. A generalized estimating equations approach was used to estimate the change in response variables at AC from BC. RESULTS: Compared to BC, the AC period was characterized by a marked reduction in the number of activations for STEMI (29%, 95% CI:18-38, p < .001), number of activations leading to angiography (34%, 95% CI: 12-50, p = .005) and number of activations leading to PPCI (20%, 95% CI: 11-27, p < .001). A decline in STEMI activations drove the reductions in angiography and PPCI volumes. Relative to BC, the D2B times in the AC period increased on average by 20%, 95%CI (-0.2 to 44, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 Pandemic has adversely affected many aspects of STEMI care, including timely access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for PPCI.

COVID-19 complicated by acute myocardial infarction with extensive thrombus burden and cardiogenic shock

A patient with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) developed acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by extensive coronary thrombosis and cardiogenic shock. She underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and placement of a mechanical circulatory support device but subsequently died from shock. This report illustrates the challenges in managing patients with COVID-19, AMI, and cardiogenic shock.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Risk of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). METHODS: We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference. RESULTS: Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.