To address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic,¹ strict social containment measures have been adopted worldwide, and health care systems have been reorganized to cope with the enormous increase in the numbers of acutely ill patients.^2,3 During this same period, some changes in the pattern of hospital admissions for other conditions have been noted. The aim of the present analysis is to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak.

The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions; however, the subject remains controversial and no official statements have been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with involvement of eight European scientific societies, aims to review the available trial evidence and to define the principles needed to guide decision making in patients with PFO. In order to guarantee a strict process, position statements were developed with the use of a modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based often on limited and non-randomised data, while waiting for more conclusive evidence, it was possible to conclude on a number of position statements regarding a rational general approach to PFO management and to specific considerations regarding left circulation thromboembolism. For some therapeutic aspects, it was possible to express stricter position statements based on randomised trials. This position paper provides the first largely shared, interdisciplinary approach for a rational PFO management based on the best available evidence.

The prevalence of plaque rupture at the culprit lesion identified by optical coherence tomography (OCT) in different clinical subset of patients undergoing coronary angiography and its clinical predictors remain to be defined. All studies including patients with OCT evaluation of the culprit coronary plaque were included. The prevalence of culprit plaque rupture (CPR) and thin-cap fibro-atheroma (TCFA) were the primary endpoints. The factors associated with these findings were studied in a subset of patients with different clinical presentations [ST-elevation myocardial (STEMI) vs. nonST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) vs. unstable angina (UA) vs. stable angina pectoris (SAP)]. One hundred and fifty citations were initially appraised at the abstract level and 23 full-text studies were assessed. The mean prevalence of CPR and TCFA was 48.1% (40.5–55.8) and 48.7% (37.4–60.1), respectively. The prevalence of CPR and TCFA were higher in STEMI (70.4 and 76.6%) than in NSTEMI (55.6 and 56.3%) and UA (39.1 and 52.9%) or SAP (6.2 and 22.8%). In the overall population at meta-regression analysis, TCFA and current smoking were the only predictors of CPR (B 3.6:2.0–5.1, P < 0.001 and 0.06:0.02–0.1, P = 0.002, respectively). The factors associated with CPR were different depending on clinical presentation. Hypertension was the only clinical predictor for STEMI (B 3.3: 1.2.–5.3 P = 0.001), while advanced age (B 0.12: 0.02–0.22, P = 0.021), diabetes mellitus (B 0.04: 0.01–0.08, P = 0.012), and hyperlipidaemia (B 0.07:0.02–0.11, P = 0.005) were the predictors in NSTEMI and UA. No clinical predictor was found in SA. Our analysis showed high rates of CPR and TCFA detected by OCT in CAD patients, especially in those with ACS, although their prevalence is not negligible in stable patients. TCFA seems to be a strong predictor of CPR in all the ACS scenarios.

Background: Observational studies suggest a survival advantage with bilateral single internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery grafting for coronary surgery, whereas this conclusion is not supported by randomized trials. We hypothesized that this inconsistency is attributed to unmeasured confounders intrinsic to observational studies. To test our hypothesis, we performed a meta‐analysis of the observational literature comparing BITA and single internal thoracic artery, deriving incident rate ratio for mortality at end of follow‐up and at 1 year. We postulated that BITA would not affect 1‐year survival based on the natural history of coronary artery bypass occlusion, so that a difference between groups at 1 year could not be attributed to the intervention. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE and Pubmed to identify all observational studies comparing the outcome of BITA versus single internal thoracic artery. One‐year and long‐term mortality for BITA and single internal thoracic artery were compared in the propensity‐score–matched (PSM) series, that is, the form of observational evidence less prone to confounders. Thirty‐eight observational studies (174 205 total patients) were selected for final comparison. In the 12 propensity‐score–matched series (34 019 patients), the mortality reduction for BITA was similar at 1 year and at the end of follow‐up (incident rate ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.82 versus 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.85; P for subgroup difference=0.43). Conclusions: Unmeasured confounders, rather than biological superiority, may explain the survival advantage of BITA in observational series.

Background: Little evidence shows whether a third arterial graft provides superior outcomes compared with the use of 2 arterial grafts in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A meta-analysis of all the propensity score-matched observational studies comparing the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting with the use of 2-arterial versus 3-arterial grafts was performed. Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Long-term mortality in the propensity score-matched populations was the primary end point. Secondary end points were in-hospital/30-day mortality for the propensity score-matched populations and long-term mortality for the unmatched populations. In the matched population, time-to-event outcome for long-term mortality was extracted as hazard ratios, along with their variance. Statistical pooling of survival (time-to-event) was performed according to a random effect model, computing risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Eight propensity score-matched studies reporting on 10 287 matched patients (2-arterial graft: 5346; 3-arterial graft: 4941) were selected for final comparison. The mean follow-up time ranged from 37.2 to 196.8 months. The use of 3 arterial grafts was not statistically associated with early mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.22; P =0.62). The use of 3 arterial grafts was associated with statistically significantly lower hazard for late death (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.87; P <0.001), irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status. This result was qualitatively similar in the unmatched population (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.98; P =0.04). Conclusions: The use of a third arterial conduit in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting is not associated with higher operative risk and is associated with superior long-term survival, irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status.