RESUMEN
It is now widely known that COVID-19 can also cause various extrapulmonary manifestations. Possible mechanisms of cardiovascular damage include direct myocardial damage due to hypercoagulability caused by systemic inflammation, which may also lead to destabilisation of coronary plaques. We present a case of a 30-year-old young man following asymptomatic COVID-19 infection, who was admitted to the emergency room of the Grande Ospedale Metropolitano di Reggio Calabria, Italy, with typical chest pain. The patient had no cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular risk factors including no family history of cardiovascular disease. Urgent coronary angiography showed critical stenosis of the middle-proximal portion of the left anterior descending artery (80%) with ulcerated plaque appearance. Regardless of cardiovascular risk factors, our case report emphasises the need to determine COVID-19 status in all patients with acute myocardial infarction during this pandemic.Copyright © 2023, CKS.
RESUMEN
Background: Heart failure (HF) patients are predisposed to recurrences and disease destabilizations, especially during the COVID-19 outbreak period. In this scenario, telemedicine could be a proper way to ensure continuous care. The purpose of the study was to compare two modalities of HF outpatients' follow up, the traditional in-person visits and telephone consultations, during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy. Method(s): We performed an observational study on consecutive HF outpatients. The follow up period was 12 months, starting from the beginning of the COVID-19 Italy lockdown. According to the follow up modality, and after the propensity matching score, patients were divided into two groups: those in G1 (n = 92) were managed with traditional in-person visits and those in G2 (n = 92) were managed with telephone consultation. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were overall mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and hospitalization due to HF. Result(s): No significant differences between G1 and G2 have been observed regarding MACE (p = 0.65), cardiovascular death (p = 0.39), overall mortality (p = 0.85), hospitalization due to acute HF (p = 0.07), and cardiovascular hospitalization (p = 0.4). Survival analysis performed by the Kaplan-Meier method also did not show significant differences between G1 and G2. Conclusion(s): Telephone consultations represented a valid option to manage HF outpatients during COVID-19 pandemic. They were comparable to traditional in-person visits.