Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias related to COVID infection and vaccination in patients with Brugada syndrome: Insights from a large Italian multicenter registry based on continuous rhythm monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome (BrS) has a dynamic ECG pattern that might be revealed by certain conditions such as fever. We evaluated the incidence and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination among BrS patients carriers of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients were carriers of devices with remote monitoring follow-up. We recorded VAs 6 months before COVID-19 infection or vaccination, during infection, at each vaccination, and up to 6-month post-COVID-19 or 1 month after the last vaccination. In ICD carriers, we documented any device intervention. RESULTS: We included 326 patients, 202 with an ICD and 124 with an ILR. One hundred and nine patients (33.4%) had COVID-19, 55% of whom developed fever. Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection was 2.76%. After infection, we recorded only two ventricular tachycardias (VTs). After the first, second, and third vaccines, the incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was 1.5%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The incidence of VT was 1% after the second dose. Six-month post-COVID-19 healing or 1 month after the last vaccine, we documented NSVT in 3.4%, VT in 0.5%, and ventricular fibrillation in 0.5% of patients. Overall, one patient received anti-tachycardia pacing and one a shock. ILR carriers had no VAs. No differences were found in VT before and after infection and before and after each vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: From this large multicenter study conducted in BrS patients, followed by remote monitoring, the overall incidence of sustained VAs after COVID-19 infection and vaccination is relatively low.

The Feasibility, Effectiveness and Acceptance of Virtual Visits as Compared to In-Person Visits among Clinical Electrophysiology Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

Therapeutic vs prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy, in the form of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, is one of the most severe sequelae of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been associated with poorer outcomes. However, the role of therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) or prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) in COVID-19 patients has not been definitely established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather all the available real-world data in the field and to provide a reliable effect size of the effect on mortality of tAC compared to pAC in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Real-world studies (RWS) were identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 31th October 2021. Randomized controlled trials were excluded. Mortality and bleedings were considered as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: 10 RWS and 5541 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, tAC was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.71). There was asymmetry at the funnel plot suggesting publication bias, that was not confirmed at the Egger test (p=0.07). For the secondary endpoint, there was a non-statistically significant tendency for more bleedings in patients treated with tAC compared to pAC (RR=1.75, 95% CI 0.81-3.81). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis, based on RWS and adjusted estimates of risk, suggests a survival benefit of tAC over pAC in COVID-19 patients in the real world.

Clinical Management of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19 Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cardiac Arrhythmia Center after Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Available reports on the post-discharge management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in COVID-19 patients are scarce. The aim of this case series was to describe the clinical outcomes of new-onset AF in COVID-19 patients referred to a tertiary cardiac arrhythmia center after hospital discharge. METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to our center for an ambulatory evaluation from 18 May 2020 to 15 March 2022 were retrospectively screened. Patients were included in the current analysis if new-onset AF was diagnosed during hospitalization for COVID-19 and then referred to our clinic. RESULTS: Among 946 patients, 23 (2.4%) were evaluated for new-onset AF during COVID-19. The mean age of the study cohort was 71.5 ± 8.1 years; 87.0% were male. Median time from COVID-19 discharge and the first ambulatory evaluation was 53 (41.5-127) days; median follow-up time was 175 (83-336) days. At the in-office evaluation, 14 (60.9%) patients were in sinus rhythm, and nine patients were in AF. In 13.0% of cases, oral anticoagulation was stopped according to CHADS-VASc. Eight patients in AF were scheduled for electrical cardioversion; one patient was rate-controlled. Four patients were treated with catheter ablation (CA) during follow-up. Two post-cardioversion AF recurrences were detected during follow-up, while no recurrences were diagnosed among patients who underwent CA. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that AF may not be considered as a simple bystander of the in-hospital COVID-19 course. Management of new-onset AF in post-COVID-19 patients referred to our clinic did not significantly differ from our usual practice, both in terms of long-term oral anticoagulation and in terms of rhythm control strategy.

Impact of prior statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: data from tertiary referral hospital during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

Aims Epidemiological evidence suggests that anti-inflammatory and immuno-modulatory properties of statins may reduce the risk of infections and infection-related complications. In this observational multi-centre study, we aimed to assess the impact of prior statin use on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity and mortality. Methods and results Consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were considered and enrolled in four tertiary referral hospitals (Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan;Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome;Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia;Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital;Bergamo) From 23 February 2020 to 31 March 2020, in-hospital mortality and severity of COVID-19 assessed with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were deemed primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Among 842 patients enrolled, 179 (21%) were treated with statins before admission. Statin patients showed more comorbidities and more severe COVID-19 [NEWS 4 (IQR: 2–6) vs. 3 (IQR: 2–5), P < 0.001]. Despite having similar rates of intensive care unit admission, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation, statin users appeared to show higher mortality rates. After balancing pre-existing relevant clinical conditions that could affect COVID-19 prognosis with propensity score matching, statin therapy confirmed its association with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5;61% vs. 48%, P = 0.025) but not with in-hospital mortality (26% vs. 28%, P = 0.185). At univariate logistic regression analysis, statin use was confirmed not to be associated with mortality (OR: 0.901;95% CI: 0.537–1.51;P = 0.692) and to be associated with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5 OR: 1.7;95% CI: 1.067–2.71;P = 0.026). Conclusions Our results did not confirm the supposed favourable effects of statin therapy on COVID-19 outcomes. Conversely, they suggest that statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities, which indeed expose to increased risks of more severe COVID-19.538 Figure 1

The role of virtual visits in cardiology: from the pandemic era to future perspectives

Aims During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in-person visits were reduced to prevent potential risk of exposure. Virtual visits (VVs) represent an innovative model to take care of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of VV in the management of CIED patients. Methods and results We performed a prospective study including all CIED patients who received a VV from July 2020 to July 2021. Blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate, and body weight were registered by the patient. Moreover, we sent to the patient a questionnaire to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction about VV. We enrolled 182 patients in the study period. The mean age of patients was 70.2 ± 13.5 years-old and the majority (61.1%) was male. In two cases, VVs were not performed due to technical issues. Overall, 70.9% of patients utilized a smartphone, while 20.1% and 9% used, respectively, a tablet or a personal computer. The mean duration of VV was 27.8 ± 7.8 min. Patients helped by a caregiver were 64 (35.2%). One urgent/emergent in‐person visit was performed in a patient with acute heart failure. Overall, VV was preferred to in-person evaluation. Conclusion VV is a safe and feasible approach to follow-up CIED patients. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached after VV. The use of VV has promising potential and should be implemented beyond COVID-19 period and integrated in the healthcare system as a new model of care.

ACE-I and ARBS do not influence the chest CT presentation and 1-year survival of COVID-19 patients: Italian multicentre registry

Aims A possible interference between ACE-i or ARBs with ACE-2 receptor and SARS-CoV-2 pathway has been raised. Despite data have shown no clinical impact of therapy with ACE-I or ARBs on COVID-19, these drugs are often discontinued upon hospitalization or diagnosis. To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and prior outpatient therapy with RAAS inhibitors on the chest CT severity score performed within 24 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (before stopping medications or starting specific therapy for COVID-19) and on 1-year survival. Methods and results This is a multicentre, prospective, observational study. All admitted patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who performed chest CT within 24 h of arrival were consecutively enrolled from 1 March to 1 June 2020. A severity score was attributed to Chest CT by two radiologists in blind to the patient’s clinical information and a cut-off value of 19.5 was considered to define severe radiological pneumonia. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed in order to evaluate the determinants of 1-year survival. 590 patients with a mean age of 63 ± 14 years were included. Seventy-three (12.4%) patients were treated with ACE-I, 85 (14.4%) with ARBs and 62 (10.5%) with CCB. Cox regression analysis showed that male gender (OR: 1.4;95% CI: from 1.02 to 2.07;P = 0.035), diabetes (OR: 1.6;95% CI: from 1.03 to 2.7;P = 0.037), age (OR: 1.02;95% CI: from 1.008 to 1.033;P = 0.001), and obesity (OR: 3.04;95% CI: from 1.3 to 6.7;P < 0.001) were independently associated with a severe CT score. Of note, while prior outpatient therapy with ACE-I and ARBs was not independently associated with severe CT score, therapy with CCB was independently associated with a severe CT score (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.4, P = 0.033). Severe chest CT severity score (OR: 1.05;95% CI: from 1.02 to 1.08;P < 0.001), P/F ratio (OR: 0.998;95% CI: from 0.994 to 0.998;P < 0.001), and older age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: from 1.03 to 1.1;P < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality at 1-year follow-up. Neither ACE-I, ARBs, and CCB were associated with mortality at 1 year follow-up. Conclusions ACE-I and ARBs do not influence the chest CT presentation of COVID-19 patients at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, ACE-I and ARBs do not influence 1-year survival of COVID-19 survivors.

Arrhythmogenic Risk and Mechanisms of QT-Prolonging Drugs to Treat COVID-19.

While looking for a solution to treat COVID-19, the massive off-label use of several drugs in COVID-19 has generated concerns in the early phase of the pandemic because of possible arrhythmogenic effects in relation to QTc interval prolongation. Indeed, some of these drugs have been historically associated with QT prolongation and Torsade de Point, a potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia, and their first-time use on a very large scale has raised several concerns in the scientific community. This work aims to summarize the underlying arrhythmogenic mechanisms related to the use of potentially QT-prolonging drugs used during the pandemic to treat COVID-19.

Echocardiography in COVID-19 Pandemic: Clinical Findings and the Importance of Emerging Technology.

COVID-19 could have a direct or indirect effect on the cardiovascular system. To detect cardiac involvement, transthoracic echocardiography is highly recommended. Considering the risk of equipment contamination and personnel exposure, mainly focused echocardiographic evaluations instead of complete examination are recommended and the use of portable devices easy to disinfect with offline reporting is highly suggested. COVID-19 could affect different sections of the heart and it is useful to analyze them separately during an echocardiographic examination. Available echocardiographic data on COVID-19 patients are scarce and do not provide definite evidence and more studies are certainly needed to better evaluate this topic.

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey. METHODS: Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure. RESULTS: The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe. CONCLUSION: CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.

Prevalence and outcome of silent hypoxemia in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In the early stages of COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxemia has been described in absence of dyspnea ("silent" or "happy" hypoxemia). Our aim was to report its prevalence and outcome in a series of hypoxemic patients upon Emergency Department admission. METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study we enrolled a study population consisting of 213 COVID-19 patients with PaO2/FiO2 ratio <300 mmHg at hospital admission. Two groups (silent and dyspneic hypoxemia) were defined. Symptoms, blood gas analysis, chest X-ray (CXR) severity, need for intensive care and outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Silent hypoxemic patients (68-31.9%) compared to the dyspneic hypoxemic patients (145-68.1%) showed greater frequency of extra respiratory symptoms (myalgia, diarrhea and nausea) and lower plasmatic LDH. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 225±68 mmHg and 192±78 mmHg in silent and dyspneic hypoxemia respectively (P=0.002). Eighteen percent of the patients with PaO2/FiO2 from 50 to 150 mmHg presented silent hypoxemia. Silent and dyspneic hypoxemic patients had similar PaCO2 (34.2±6.8 mmHg vs. 33.5±5.7 mmHg, P=0.47) but different respiratory rates (24.6±5.9 bpm vs. 28.6±11.3 bpm respectively, P=0.002). Even when CXR was severely abnormal, 25% of the population was silent hypoxemic. Twenty-six point five percent and 38.6% of silent and dyspneic patients were admitted to the ICU respectively (P=0.082). Mortality rate was 17.6% and 29.7% (log-rank P=0.083) in silent and dyspneic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Silent hypoxemia is remarkably present in COVID-19. The presence of dyspnea is associated with a more severe clinical condition.

Arrhythmic safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients from different clinical settings.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to describe ECG modifications and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients undergoing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in different clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: COVID-19 patients at seven institutions receiving HCQ therapy from whom a baseline and at least one ECG at 48+ h were available were enrolled in the study. QT/QTc prolongation, QT-associated and QT-independent arrhythmic events, arrhythmic mortality, and overall mortality during HCQ therapy were assessed. A total of 649 COVID-19 patients (61.9 ± 18.7 years, 46.1% males) were enrolled. HCQ therapy was administrated as a home therapy regimen in 126 (19.4%) patients, and as an in-hospital-treatment to 495 (76.3%) hospitalized and 28 (4.3%) intensive care unit (ICU) patients. At 36-72 and at 96+ h after the first HCQ dose, 358 and 404 ECGs were obtained, respectively. A significant QT/QTc interval prolongation was observed (P < 0.001), but the magnitude of the increase was modest [+13 (9-16) ms]. Baseline QT/QTc length and presence of fever (P = 0.001) at admission represented the most important determinants of QT/QTc prolongation. No arrhythmic-related deaths were reported. The overall major ventricular arrhythmia rate was low (1.1%), with all events found not to be related to QT or HCQ therapy at a centralized event evaluation. No differences in QT/QTc prolongation and QT-related arrhythmias were observed across different clinical settings, with non-QT-related arrhythmias being more common in the intensive care setting. CONCLUSION: HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths.

QT Interval Monitoring and Drugs Management During COVID-19 Pandemic.

While facing potentially high morbidity from COVID-19 without known effective therapies, the off-label use of several non-specific drugs has been advocated, including re-purposed anti- viral (e.g., remdesivir or the lopinavir/ritonavir combination), biologic agents (e.g., tocilizumab), and antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in association with or without azithromycin. Data regarding the effectiveness of these drugs in treating COVID-19 has been shown in some trials and clinical settings, but further randomised controlled trials are still being carried out. One of the main concerns regarding their widespread use, however, is their possible effects on the QT interval and arrhythmogenic potential. Some of these drugs have been associated with QT prolongation and Torsades de Point, a potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia. The review aims to highlight the magnitude of this problem, to quickly refresh clinically impacting cornerstones of QT interval and TdP pathophysiology, to summarize the available evidence regarding the QT and arrhythmia impact of drugs used in different clinical settings in COVID-19 patients, and to help the physicians dealing with the knowledge needed in the everyday clinical duties in case of doubts regarding QT-induced arrhythmias in this time of emergency.

Redefining the Prognostic Value of High-Sensitivity Troponin in COVID-19 Patients: The Importance of Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Although studies assessing cardiovascular comorbidities and myocardial injury in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have been published, no reports focused on clinical outcomes of myocardial injury in patients with and without chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) are currently available. METHODS: In this study, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to four different institutions were screened for enrolment. Patients were divided into two groups (CCS vs. no-CCS). Association with in-hospital mortality and related predictors represented the main study outcome; myocardial injury and its predictors were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 674 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, 112 (16.6%) with an established history of CCS. Myocardial injury occurred in 43.8% patients with CCS vs. 14.4% patients without CCS, as confirmed by high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) elevation on admission or during hospitalization. The mortality rate in the CCS cohort was nearly three-fold higher. After adjusting for disease severity, myocardial injury resulted significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in the no-CCS group but not in CCS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCS and COVID-19 showed high mortality rate. Myocardial injury may be a bystander in CCS patients and COVID-19, while in patients without known history of CCS, myocardial injury has a significant role in predicting poor outcomes.

Non-invasive hemodynamic profile of early COVID-19 infection.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the systemic and pulmonary macrohemodynamics in early COVID-19 infection. Echocardiography may provide useful insights into COVID-19 physiopathology. METHODS: Twenty-three COVID-19 patients were enrolled in a medical ward. Gas exchange, transthoracic echocardiographic, and hemodynamic variables were collected. RESULTS: Mean age was 57 ± 17 years. The patients were hypoxemic (PaO2 /FiO2  = 273.0 ± 102.6 mmHg) and mildly hypocapnic (PaCO2  = 36.2 ± 6.3 mmHg, pH = 7.45 ± 0.03). Mean arterial pressure was decreased (86.7 [80.0-88.3] mmHg). Cardiac index was elevated (4.32 ± 0.90 L∙min-1 ∙m-2 ) and the resulting systemic vascular resistance index low (1,458 [1358-1664] dyn∙s∙cm-5 ∙m-2 ). The right heart was morphologically and functionally normal, with pulmonary artery pressure (PAPm, 18.0 ± 2.9 mmHg) and Total Pulmonary Resistances (TPR, 2.3 [2.1-2.7] mmHg∙l-1 ∙min-1 ) within normal limits. When stratifying for SVRI, patients with an SVRI value below the cohort median had also more severe oxygenation impairment and lower TPR, despite a similar degree of CXR infiltrates. Oxygen delivery index in this group resulted supranormal. CONCLUSIONS: In the early stages of COVID-19 infection the hemodynamic profile is characterized by a hyperdynamic circulatory state with high CI and low SVRI, while the right heart is functionally unaffected. Our findings suggest that hypoxemia, viral sepsis or peripheral shunting are possible mechanisms for the vasodilation that dominates at this stage of the disease and may itself worsen the gas exchange.

Reduction in heart failure hospitalization rate during coronavirus disease 19 pandemic outbreak.

AIMS: The recent coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak forced the adoption of restraint measures, which modified the hospital admission patterns for several diseases. The aim of the study is to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) during the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, compared with a corresponding period during the previous year and an earlier period during the same year. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis on HF admissions number at eight hospitals in Italy throughout the study period (21 February to 31 March 2020), compared with an inter-year period (21 February to 31 March 2019) and an intra-year period (1 January to 20 February 2020). The primary outcome was the overall rate of hospital admissions for HF. A total of 505 HF patients were included in this survey: 112 during the case period, 201 during intra-year period, and 192 during inter-year period. The mean admission rate during the case period was 2.80 admissions per day, significantly lower compared with intra-year period (3.94 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037), or with inter-year (4.92 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Patients admitted during study period were less frequently admitted in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II compared with inter-year period (P = 0.019). At covariance analysis NYHA class was significantly lower in patients admitted during inter-year control period, compared with patients admitted during case period (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Admissions for HF were significantly reduced during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

Acute Coronary Syndromes and Covid-19: Exploring the Uncertainties.

Since an association between myocardial infarction (MI) and respiratory infections has been described for influenza viruses and other respiratory viral agents, understanding possible physiopathological links between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is of the greatest importance. The initial data suggest an underestimation of ACS cases all over the world, but acute MI still represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and should not be overshadowed during the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. No common consensus regarding the most adequate healthcare management policy for ACS is currently available. Indeed, important differences have been reported between the measures employed to treat ACS in China during the first disease outbreak and what currently represents clinical practice across Europe and the USA. This review aims to discuss the pathophysiological links between MI, respiratory infections, and Covid-19; epidemiological data related to ACS at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic; and learnings that have emerged so far from several catheterization labs and coronary care units all over the world, in order to shed some light on the current strategies for optimal management of ACS patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.