Age-Related Mortality in STEMI Patients: Insight from One Year of HUB Centre Experience during the Pandemic.

Background: Old patients have a poor prognosis when affected by ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of age on acute and mid-term mortality in STEMI patients over one year in the pandemic period. Methods: we collected data on 283 STEMI patients divided into three groups according to age (not old, "Not-O", ≤74 y/o; old, "O", 75−84 y/o; very old, "Very-O", ≥85 y/o). Results: the three groups did not differ in their clinical or procedural characteristics. The Very-O patients had a significantly increased incidence of in-hospital MACE (35%), mortality (30.0%), and percentage of cardiac death (25.0%). The only two independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were the ejection fraction (EF) [OR:0.902 (95% CI) 0.868−0.938; p < 0.0001] and COVID-19 infection [OR:3.177 (95% CI) 1.212−8.331; p = 0.019]. At follow-up (430 +/− days), the survival rates were decreased significatively among the age groups (Not-O 2.9% vs. O 14.8% vs. Very-O 28.6%; p < 0.0001), and the only two independent predictors of the follow-up mortality were the EF [OR:0.935 (95% CI) 0.891−0.982; p = 0.007] and age [OR:1.06 (95% CI) 1.018−1.110; p = 0.019]. Conclusions: in very old patients, all the accessory procedures that may be performed should be accurately and independently weighed up in terms of the risk−benefit balance and the real impact on the quality of life because of the poor mid-term prognosis.

Optical Coherence Tomography and Coronary Dissection: Precious Tool or Useless Surplus?

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare clinical condition, but frequently manifested as acute myocardial infarction. In this particular setting, in recent years, optical coherence tomography (OCT) has been established as a possible diagnostic method due to the high spatial resolution (10-20 µm), which can visualize the different layers of coronary vessels. OCT can better analyze the "binary" or double lumen morphology, typical of this entity. Furthermore, it can identify the entrance breach and the circumferential and longitudinal extension of the lesion. However, we have to emphasize that this technique is not free from complications. OCT could further aggravate a dissection or exacerbate a new intimal tear. Therefore, the use of OCT in the evaluation of SCAD should be defined by balancing the diagnostic benefits versus procedural risks. Moreover, we underline that as SCAD is a rare condition and OCT is a recently introduced technique in clinical practice, limited data is available in literature.

CT Perfusion Versus Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Suspected In-Stent Restenosis or CAD Progression.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) alone, adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion assessed by computed tomography (CTP) alone, and coronary CTA + CTP by using a 16-cm Z-axis coverage scanner versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the clinical standard. BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation. METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.