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.

To the Editor: Mehta et al. (Oct. 10 issue)¹ report that complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease in the Complete versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies to Treat Multivessel Disease after Early PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE) trial. Mehta and colleagues note that the culprit-lesion-only PCI group received “medical therapy with no further revascularization, regardless of whether there was evidence of ischemia on noninvasive testing.” The crossover rate to complete revascularization among these patients was only 4.7% within 45 days. However, guidelines support risk stratification based . . .

The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a well-established tool to assess lower extremity physical performance status. Its predictive ability for all-cause mortality has been sparsely reported, but with conflicting results in different subsets of participants. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between SPPB score and all-cause mortality. Articles were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BioMed Central between July and September 2015 and updated in January 2016. Inclusion criteria were observational studies; >50 participants; stratification of population according to SPPB value; data on all-cause mortality; English language publications. Twenty-four articles were selected from available evidence. Data of interest (i.e., clinical characteristics, information after stratification of the sample into four SPPB groups [0–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12]) were retrieved from the articles and/or obtained by the study authors. The odds ratio (OR) and/or hazard ratio (HR) was obtained for all-cause mortality according to SPPB category (with SPPB scores 10–12 considered as reference) with adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Standardized data were obtained for 17 studies (n = 16,534, mean age 76 ± 3 years). As compared to SPPB scores 10–12, values of 0–3 (OR 3.25, 95%CI 2.86–3.79), 4–6 (OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.92–2.39), and 7–9 (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.32–1.71) were each associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. The association between poor performance on SPPB and all-cause mortality remained highly consistent independent of follow-up length, subsets of participants, geographic area, and age of the population. Random effects meta-regression showed that OR for all-cause mortality with SPPB values 7–9 was higher in the younger population, diabetics, and men. An SPPB score lower than 10 is predictive of all-cause mortality. The systematic implementation of the SPPB in clinical practice settings may provide useful prognostic information about the risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, the SPPB could be used as a surrogate endpoint of all-cause mortality in trials needing to quantify benefit and health improvements of specific treatments or rehabilitation programs. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42015024916).

We hypothesized that fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would be superior to medical therapy as initial treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Among 1220 patients with angiographically significant stenoses, those in whom at least one stenosis was hemodynamically significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy and were entered into a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization. A total of 888 patients underwent randomization (447 patients in the PCI group and 441 in the medical-therapy group). At 5 years, the rate of the primary end point was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (13.9% vs. 27.0%; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.63; P<0.001). The difference was driven by urgent revascularizations, which occurred in 6.3% of the patients in the PCI group as compared with 21.1% of those in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.41). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the rates of death (5.1% and 5.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.75) or myocardial infarction (8.1% and 12.0%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.00). There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary end point between the PCI group and the registry cohort (13.9% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.39). Relief from angina was more pronounced after PCI than after medical therapy. In patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial FFR-guided PCI strategy was associated with a significantly lower rate of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 5 years than medical therapy alone. Patients without hemodynamically significant stenoses had a favorable long-term outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495 .).

Background—: The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy and the risk-benefit ratio for long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting remain poorly defined. We evaluated the impact of up to 6 versus 24 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy in a broad all-comers patient population receiving a balanced proportion of Food and Drug Administration–approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents. Methods and Results—: We randomly assigned 2013 patients to receive bare-metal, zotarolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. At 30 days, patients in each stent group were randomly allocated to receive up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in addition to aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of death of any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 10.1% with 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with 10.0% with 6-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–1.29; P =0.91). The individual risks of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or stent thrombosis did not differ between the study groups; however, there was a consistently greater risk of hemorrhage in the 24-month clopidogrel group according to all prespecified bleeding definitions, including the recently proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. Conclusions—: A regimen of 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in patients who had received a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a 6-month clopidogrel regimen in reducing the composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00611286.