UNASSIGNED: The optimal timing for nonculprit vascular reconstruction surgery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) is still controversial. Our aim was to explore the optimal intervention time for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in STEMI patients who underwent MVD.
UNASSIGNED: The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2024 for clinical studies comparing immediate multivessel PCI and staged multivessel PCI in patients with STEMI. The primary outcomes were death from any cause, cardiovascular death, noncardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, stent thrombosis, renal dysfunction and major bleeding. The risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with fixed-effects models and random-effects models, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Five randomized trials with 2,782 patients and six prospective observational studies with 3,131 patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The staged PCI group had significantly lower pooled RRs for myocardial infarction (0.43, 95% CI = 0.27-0.67; P = 0.0002) and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in any cause of death, cardiovascular cause of death, or noncardiac cause of death. However, the results of prospective observational studies in the real world indicated that the staged PCI group had significantly lower pooled ORs for all-cause mortality (2.30, 95% CI = 1.22-4.34; P = 0.01), cardiovascular death (2.29, 95% CI = 1.10-4.77; P = 0.03), and noncardiovascular death (3.46, 95% CI = 1.40-8.56; P = 0.007).
UNASSIGNED: According to our randomized trial analysis, staged multivessel PCI significantly reduces the risk of myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization compared to immediate multivessel PCI. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or noncardiovascular mortality risk. However, prospective non-randomized studies suggest there might be a benefit in mortality in the staged PCI group. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for STEMI patients with MVD.

Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), a potential aftereffect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure, may affect valve performance and clinical outcomes. At this moment we describe an elderly patient who, despite being on prophylactic antiplatelet medication for previous percutaneous intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease (CAD) and a self-expanding valve in-situ for aortic stenosis (TAVR), presented to the emergency room with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), probably as a result of a thromboembolic event from HALT. The case highlights the significance of considering HALT-associated thromboembolism as a potential cause of myocardial infarction (MI) in post-TAVR patients.

Several organizations have developed guidelines for the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the optimal strategy regarding revascularization in the setting of multivessel disease, specifically with regards to culprit vessel versus complete revascularization, continues to evolve. While previous observational studies promoted culprit vessel-only intervention in patients with STEMI, recent randomized controlled trials suggest potential benefits with multivessel revascularization, either at the time of the index event or in a staged fashion, in patients without cardiogenic shock. This may be due to the known instability of non-culprit lesions in the setting of acute coronary syndrome, and the diffuse coronary processes involved. As additional literature examines culprit vessel versus multivessel revascularization strategies, clinicians continue to be tasked with determining optimal treatment plans for their patients and understanding the factors that promote selected revascularization strategies. This review summarizes and discusses observational studies, randomized control trials and current guidelines in order to evaluate optimal reperfusion strategies for patients presenting with STEMI in the setting of multivessel disease.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to look at the impact of early intravenous Metoprolol in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on infarct size, as measured by cardio magnetic resonance (CMR) and left ventricular ejection fraction.
METHODS: We searched the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. We included only randomized control trials that reported the use of early intravenous Metoprolol in STEMI before PCI on infarct size, as measured by CMR and left ventricular ejection fraction. RevMan software 5.4 was used for performing the analysis.
RESULTS: Following a literature search, 340 publications were found. Finally, 18 studies were included for the systematic review, and 8 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis after the full-text screening. At 6 months, the pooled effect revealed a statistically significant association between Metoprolol and increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (%) compared to controls (mean difference [MD] = 3.57, [95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.22-4.92], p < .00001), as well as decreased infarcted myocardium(g) compared to controls (MD = -3.84, [95% [CI] = -5.75 to -1.93], p < .0001). At 1 week, the pooled effect revealed a statistically significant association between Metoprolol and increased LVEF (%) compared to controls (MD = 2.98, [95% CI = 1.26-4.69], p = .0007), as well as decreased infarcted myocardium(%) compared to controls (MD = -3.21, [95% CI = -5.24 to -1.18], p = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: A significant decrease in myocardial infarction and increase in LVEF (%) was linked to receiving Metoprolol at 1 week and 6-month follow-up.

The novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a global pandemic; COVID-19 has resulted in significant challenges in the delivery of healthcare, including emergency management of multiple diagnoses, such as stroke and ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department care of stroke and STEMI patients. In this study a review of the available literature was performed using pre-defined search terms, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria. Our analysis, using a narrative review format, indicates that there was not a significant change in time required for key interventions for stroke and STEMI emergent management, including imaging (door-to-CT), tPA administration (door-to-needle), angiographic reperfusion (door-to-puncture), and percutaneous coronary intervention (door-to-balloon). Potential future areas of investigation include how emergency department (ED) stroke and STEMI care has adapted in response to different COVID-19 variants and stages of the pandemic, as well as identifying strategies used by EDs that were successful in providing effective emergency care in the face of the pandemic.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to investigate the differences in the characteristics, management, and clinical outcomes of patients with and that of those without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
UNASSIGNED: Databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. Observational studies that reported on the characteristics, management, or clinical outcomes and those published as full-text articles were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of all included studies.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 27,742 patients from 13 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Significant delay in symptom onset to first medical contact (SO-to-FMC) time (mean difference = 23.42 min; 95% CI: 5.85-40.99 min; p = 0.009) and door-to-balloon (D2B) time (mean difference = 12.27 min; 95% CI: 5.77-18.78 min; p = 0.0002) was observed in COVID-19 patients. Compared to COVID-19 negative patients, those who are positive patients had significantly higher levels of C-reactive protein, D-dimer, and thrombus grade (p < 0.05) and showed more frequent use of thrombus aspiration and glycoprotein IIbIIIa (Gp2b3a) inhibitor (p < 0.05). COVID-19 positive patients also had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (OR = 5.98, 95% CI: 4.78-7.48, p < 0.0001), cardiogenic shock (OR = 2.75, 95% CI: 2.02-3.76, p < 0.0001), and stent thrombosis (OR = 5.65, 95% CI: 2.41-13.23, p < 0.0001). They were also more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 2.51-7.22, p < 0.0001) and had a longer length of stay (mean difference = 4.63 days; 95% CI: 2.56-6.69 days; p < 0.0001).
UNASSIGNED: This study revealed that COVID-19 infection had an impact on the time of initial medical intervention for patients with STEMI after symptom onset and showed that COVID-19 patients with STEMI were more likely to have thrombosis and had poorer outcomes.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the treatment of choice in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and no-reflow phenomenon is still an unsolved problem.
We searched PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events and the secondary endpoint was the incidences of no-reflow phenomenon and complete resolution of ST-segment elevation.
Eighteen randomized controlled trials were enrolled. Nicorandil significantly reduced the incidence of no-reflow phenomenon (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.64; P < 0.001; I2 = 52%). For every single outcome of major adverse cardiac events, only heart failure and ventricular arrhythmia were significantly improved with no heterogeneity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57, P < 0.001; OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.60, P < 0.001 respectively). A combination of intracoronary and intravenous nicorandil administration significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac events with no heterogeneity (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.43, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), while a single intravenous administration could not (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.06, P = 0.09; I2 = 52%).
Nicorandil can significantly improve no-reflow phenomenon and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The beneficial effects on major adverse cardiac events might be driven by the improvements of heart failure and ventricular arrhythmia. A combination of intracoronary and intravenous administration might be an optimal usage of nicorandil.

Crushed or chewed potent P2Y12 inhibitors are commonly used in the hope of bridging the gap of platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of this alternative oral administration strategy by performing a meta-analysis of available randomized clinical trials (RCTs). PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science medical literature databases were searched for RCTs comparing crushed/chewed vs. integral administration of loading dose potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with STEMI undergoing pPCI with no language restrictions from inception to January 20th, 2021. The primary efficacy endpoints of high on treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) at 1 hour together with safety and additional clinical endpoints were evaluated by pooled odds ratio (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A total of 973 patents in six RCTs were eligible for analysis, while 876 patients present baseline and procedural characteristics. HPR and PRU at 1 hour were significantly reduced in the group receiving crushed/chewed P2Y12 inhibitors compared with integral tablets (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49, P < .0001; MD -60.62, 95% CI -97.06 to -24.19, P = .001, respectively). Safety endpoints of major bleeding (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.73, P = .46) and any bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, P = .61), as well as additional clinical endpoints of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not affected by the oral administration strategy. In STEMI patients undergoing pPCI, crushed or chewed administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors are associated with enhanced early platelet inhibition and appear to be safe. The clinical profile transformed from this pharmacodynamic benefit need to be determined by further researches.

Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an unprecedented increase in public avoidance of hospitals predominantly driven by fear of contracting the virus. Recent publications highlight a re-emergence of rare post-myocardial infarction complications. While mechanical complications are infrequent in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, they are associated with high mortality rates. The concurrent occurrence of mechanical complications such as left ventricular aneurysm and ventricular septal rupture is an extremely rare entity. We hereby delineate a unique case of a 53-year-old Caucasian male who underwent successful concomitant closure of a ventricular septal rupture, left ventricular aneurysmectomy, and 3-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting. Due to a delayed initial presentation owing to the patient\'s fear of contracting COVID-19, the surgery was carried out 3 months after the myocardial infarction. His postoperative evaluation confirmed normal contractility of the left ventricle and complete closure of the ventricular septal rupture. Six months postoperatively, the patient continues to do well. We also present a literature review of the mechanical complications following delayed presentation of myocardial infarction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This article illustrates that clinicians should remain cognizant of these extremely rare but potentially lethal collateral effects during the ongoing global public-health challenge. Furthermore, it highlights a significant concern regarding the delay in first medical contact due to the reluctance of patients to visit the hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

UNASSIGNED: We sought to assess the relative merits of different revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or chronic total occlusion (CTO).
UNASSIGNED: Recent randomized trials and meta-analysis have suggested that multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, however, patients complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were excluded.
UNASSIGNED: Studies that compared multivessel PCI (immediate or staged) with culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock or CTO were included. Random odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Sixteen studies with 8695 patients complicated by cardiogenic shock and eight studies with 2259 patients complicated by CTO were included. In patients complicated by cardiogenic shock, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with lower risk for short-term renal failure (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.93; I2 = 0.0%), with no significant difference in MACE, all-cause mortality, re-infarction, revascularization, cardiac death, heart failure, major bleeding, or stroke compared with an immediate MV-PCI strategy. In patients complicated by CTO, a strategy of CO-PCI was associated with higher risk for long-term MACE (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.39-3.06; I2 = 54.0%), all-cause mortality (OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.09-4.00; I2 = 0.0%), cardiac death (OR: 3.12; 95% CI: 2.05-4.75; I2 = 16.8%), heart failure (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.22-3.24; I2 = 0.0%), and stroke (OR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.04-7.53; I2 = 0.0%) compared with a staged MV-PCI strategy, without any difference in re-infarction, revascularization, or major bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: For patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock, an immediate multivessel PCI was not advocated due to a higher risk for short-term renal failure, whereas for patients complicated by CTO, a staged multivessel PCI was advocated due to reduced risks for long-term MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, heart failure, and stroke.