Background: Knowledge gaps remain in the epidemiology and clinical implications of myocardial injury in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to determine the prevalence and outcomes of myocardial injury in severe COVID-19 compared with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to COVID-19. Methods: We included intubated patients with COVID-19 from 5 hospitals between March 15 and June 11, 2020, with troponin levels assessed. We compared them with patients from a cohort study of myocardial injury in ARDS and performed survival analysis with primary outcome of in-hospital death associated with myocardial injury. In addition, we performed linear regression to identify clinical factors associated with myocardial injury in COVID-19. Results: Of 243 intubated patients with COVID-19, 51% had troponin levels above the upper limit of normal. Chronic kidney disease, lactate, ferritin, and fibrinogen were associated with myocardial injury. Mortality was 22.7% among patients with COVID-19 with troponin under the upper limit of normal and 61.5% for those with troponin levels >10 times the upper limit of normal ( P <0.001). The association of myocardial injury with mortality was not statistically significant after adjusting for age, sex, and multisystem organ dysfunction. Compared with patients with ARDS without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 were older and had higher creatinine levels and less favorable vital signs. After adjustment, COVID-19–related ARDS was associated with lower odds of myocardial injury compared with non–COVID-19–related ARDS (odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36–0.84]; P =0.005). Conclusions: Myocardial injury in severe COVID-19 is a function of baseline comorbidities, advanced age, and multisystem organ dysfunction, similar to traditional ARDS. The adverse prognosis of myocardial injury in COVID-19 relates largely to multisystem organ involvement and critical illness.

Given the tremendous progress in interventional cardiology over the last decade, a growing number of older patients, who have more comorbidities and more complex coronary artery disease, are being considered for technically challenging and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The success of performing such complex PCI is increasingly dependent on the availability and improvement of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, which aim to provide hemodynamic support and left ventricular (LV) unloading to enable safe and successful coronary revascularization. MCS as an adjunct to high-risk PCI may, therefore, be an important component for improvement in clinical outcomes. MCS devices in this setting can be used for two main clinical conditions: patients who present with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and those undergoing technically complex and high-risk PCI without having overt cardiogenic shock. The current article reviews the advancement in the use of various devices in both AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and complex high-risk PCI, highlights the available hemodynamic and clinical data associated with the use of MCS devices, and presents suggestive management strategies focusing on appropriate patient selection and optimal timing and support to potentially increase the clinical benefit from utilizing these devices during PCI in this high-risk group of patients.

Drug‐eluting stents have rapidly come to dominate the field of coronary intervention, constituting 85% of the US market just one year after introduction. The current utilization of bare metal stents in coronary intervention in the US is quite limited. This article will review technological advances in third‐generation bare metal stents, which optimize procedural performance by means of improved flexibility, lower crossing profile, and thinner struts while maintaining fluoroscopic visibility and may portend a continued role for bare metal stents in some settings. This article will review data pertaining to outcomes with new generation bare metal stents and discuss current options for utilization of drug eluting stents versus bare metal stents in the US.