The indications for the treatment of patients with known atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are clear, while less is available about the management of new-onset AF (NOAF) during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study is to evaluate mortality and clinical outcome of this high-risk subgroup of patients. We analyzed 1455 consecutive patients undergoing PCI for STEMI. NOAF was detected in 102 subjects, 62.7% males, with a mean age of 74.8 ± 10.6 years. The mean ejection fraction (EF) was 43.5 ± 12.1% and the mean atrial volume was increased (58 ± 20.9 mL). NOAF occurred mainly in the peri-acute phase and had a very variable duration (8.1 ± 12.5 min). During hospitalization, all the patients were treated with enoxaparin, but only 21.6% of them were discharged with long term oral anticoagulation. The majority of patients had a CHA2DS2-VASc score >2 and a HAS-BLED score of 2 or 3. The in-hospital mortality was 14.2%, while the 1-year mortality was 17.2% and long-term mortality 32.1% (median follow-up 1820 days). We identified age as an independent predictor of mortality both at short- and long-term follow-ups, while EF was the only independent predictor for in-hospital mortality and arrhythmia duration for 1-year mortality. At the 1-year follow-up, we recorded three ischemic strokes and no bleeding complications.

Anterior ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (A-STEMI) has the worst prognosis among all infarct sites due to larger infarct size and the higher cardiac enzyme release. We retrospectively analyzed 584 A-STEMI undergoing urgent coronary angiography from October 2008 to April 2019. The median follow-up time was 1774 days with a minimum of a 1-year follow-up for 498 patients. In-hospital mortality was 8.6%, while long-term, all-cause mortality and 1-year mortality were 18.8% and 6.8%, respectively. The main predictors for in-hospital mortality were ejection fraction (LV-EF), baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), female gender and cardiogenic shock (CS) at admission, while long-term predictors of mortality were age, coronary artery disease (CAD) extension and LV-EF. Patients presenting with CS (6.5%) showed a higher mortality rate (in-hospital 68.4%, long term 41.7%). Among 245 patients (42%) with multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization (CR) during the index procedure was performed in 42.8% of patients and more often in patients with CS at admission (19.1% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.008). Short- and long-term mortality were not significantly influenced by the revascularization strategy (CR/culprit only). Our study confirmed the extreme fragility of A-STEMI patients, especially in case of CS at admission. LV-EF is a powerful predictor of a poor outcome. In MVD, CR during p-PCI did not show any advantage for either long- or short-term mortality compared to the culprit-only strategy.

(1) Introduction: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly coexisting medical challenges. These two conditions share an increased thrombotic and bleeding risk. Although optimal regimens of the most suitable anti-thrombotic therapy are now affirmed in the general population, cancer patients are still particularly understudied on the matter; (2) Aims And Methodology: This metanalysis (11 studies (incl. 266,865 patients)) aims at evaluating the ischemic-hemorrhagic risk profile of oncologic patients with AF treated with oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists vs. direct oral anticoagulants); (3) Results: In the oncological population, DOACs confer a benefit in terms of the reduction in ischemic, hemorrhagic and venous thromboembolic events. However, ischemic prevention has a non-insignificant bleeding risk, lower than Warfarin but significant and higher than the non-oncological patients; (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulation with DOACs provides a higher safety profile with respect to VKAs in terms of stroke reduction and a relative bleeding reduction risk. Further studies are needed to better assess the optimal anticoagulation strategy in cancer patients with AF.

The treatment of acute myocardial infarction is early revascularization. Heart failure and cardiogenic shock may complicate acute myocardial infarction despite applying the best available strategy. Levosimendan is a relatively new drug to treat heart failure with a peculiar mechanism of action: calcium sensitization of myocardial fibres. Levosimendan has a direct inotropic effect but also pleiotropic effects; through the K+ATP channel’s opening, it also has a vasodilator effect which may participate concretely in the global effects of the drug. The focus of the literature is on the anti-heart failure and anti-cardiogenic shock properties of Levosimendan, but it may have effects also preventing the development of myocardial insufficiency in acute myocardial infarction. The aim of the meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of Levosimendan on acute myocardial infarction in placebo-controlled trials. Based on the eight studies selected, we found a beneficial effect of Levosimendan on acute and long-term mortality of patients affected by acute myocardial infarction. With caution in interpreting the results of this meta-analysis, our data support the idea that Levosimendan may already have a role in the treatment of acute ischemic heart disease. Further studies specifically designed to investigate the early role in the treatment of ischemic heart failure are needed.

A relationship between malignancy and impaired hemostasis has been proven, and balancing clotting and bleeding risks can be challenging. Half of cancer patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive any oral anticoagulation (OAC). Using PubMed on the relationship between cancer and AF and their association with hemostasis, targeting studies comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct OAC (DOAC) strategies in AF cancer patients, three RCTs (>3000 patients) and eight observational studies (>250,000 patients) comparing different OACs were retrieved. The VKA prescribed was always warfarin. Dabigatran was the only DOAC not analyzed in the RCTs but the most used in non-randomized studies, whereas edoxaban-treated patients were the majority in the RCTs. Overall, the DOAC patients showed similar or lower rates of efficacy (thromboembolic) and safety (bleeding) outcomes compared to the VKA patients. DOACs are subject to fewer interactions with antineoplastic agents. DOACs may be preferable to VKAs as a thromboembolic prophylaxis in cancer patients with non-valvular AF.