Does infection predispose to thrombosis during long-term ventricular assist device support?

BACKGROUND: Infections and thrombotic events remain life-threatening complications in patients with ventricular assist devices (VAD). METHODS: We describe the relationship between both events in our cohort of patients (n = 220) supported with the HeartWare VAD (HVAD). This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing HVAD implantation between July 2009 and March 2019 at the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. RESULTS: Infection was the most common adverse event in HVAD patients, with 125 patients (56.8%) experiencing ≥ one infection (n = 168, 0.33 event per person year (EPPY)), followed by pump thrombosis (PT) in 61 patients (27.7%, 0.16 EPPY). VAD-specific infections were the largest group of infections. Of the 125 patients who had an infection, 66 (53%) had a thrombotic event. Both thrombotic events and infections were related to the duration of support, though there was only limited evidence that infections predispose to thrombosis. Those with higher than median levels of C-reactive protein during the infection were more likely to have an ischaemic stroke (IS) (34.5% vs 16.7%, p = .03), though not PT or a combined thrombotic event (CTE: first PT or IS). However, in multivariate analysis, there was no significant effect of infection predisposing to CTE. CONCLUSIONS: Infection and thrombotic events are significant adverse events related to the duration of support in patients receiving HVADs. Infections do not clearly predispose to thrombotic events.

Validity of Hemodynamic Monitoring Using Inert Gas Rebreathing Method in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Those Implanted With a Left Ventricular Assist Device.

OBJECTIVE: The present study assessed agreement between resting cardiac output estimated by inert gas rebreathing (IGR) and thermodilution methods in patients with heart failure and those implanted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic measurements were obtained in 42 patients, 22 with chronic heart failure and 20 with implanted continuous flow LVAD (34 males, aged 50 ± 11 years). Measurements were performed at rest using thermodilution and IGR methods. Cardiac output derived by thermodilution and IGR were not significantly different in LVAD (4.4 ± 0.9 L/min vs 4.7 ± 0.8 L/min, P = .27) or patients with heart failure (4.4 ± 1.4 L/min vs 4.5 ± 1.3 L/min, P = .75). There was a strong relationship between thermodilution and IGR cardiac index (r = 0.81, P = .001) and stroke volume index (r = 0.75, P = .001). Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable limits of agreement for cardiac index derived by thermodilution and IGR, namely, the mean difference (lower and upper limits of agreement) for patients with heart failure -0.002 L/min/m2 (-0.65 to 0.66 L/min/m2), and -0.14 L/min/m2 (-0.78 to 0.49 L/min/m2) for patients with LVAD. CONCLUSIONS: IGR is a valid method for estimating cardiac output and should be used in clinical practice to complement the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure and patients with an LVAD.

Effects of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced cardiomyopathy occurs in patients with long-standing LBBB. These patients characteristically exhibit hyperresponsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapies (CRT). However, there is scarce information on their response to medical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after a 3-month period following titration of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included all patients assessed in the heart failure unit of a Spanish University Hospital between 2020 and 2021, who presented with de novo ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <40%) and had a history of long-standing LBBB with no other possible causes of cardiomyopathy. RESULTS: A total of 1497 patients were analyzed, of which 21 were finally eligible. Mean time from first diagnosis of LBBB to first consultation was 4.05± 4.1 years. Mean LVEF from first consultation to end of titration improved from 29.5±5.7% to 32.7±8.6% (P = .172), but none had recovered ventricular function at the end of follow-up. New York Heart Association functional class improved from 1.91±0.46 to 1.81±0.53 (P=.542). After CRT device implantation in 8 patients, LVEF improved by 18.1±6.4% (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-directed medical therapy seems to be ineffective in improving LVEF and functional class in patients with de novo heart failure and LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy. Based on a positive response to CRT on LVEF improvement, early CRT implantation could be a reasonable strategy for these patients.

Early angiography in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: The cardio CHUS-HUSJ registry.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), while routine invasive management is established in high-risk NSTEACS patients, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of the procedure. METHODS: This study analyzes the association of early coronary angiography with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients older than 75 years old with NSTEACS. This retrospective observational study included 7811 consecutive NSTEACS patients who were examined between the years 2003 and 2017 at two Spanish university hospitals. There were 2290 patients older than 75 years old. We compared their baseline characteristics according to the early invasive strategy used (coronarography ≤24 h vs. coronarography >24 h) after the diagnosis of NSTEACS. RESULTS: Among the study participants, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. The mean follow-up period was 46 months (interquartile range 18-71 months). This association was also maintained after propensity score matching: early invasive strategy was significantly related to lower all-cause mortality [HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (CI 95% 0.54-0.71)]. CONCUSIONS: In a contemporary real-world registry of elderly NSTEACS patients, early invasive management significantly reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE during long-term follow-up. BRIEF SUMMARY: In this real-world retrospective observational study that included 2451 patients older than 75 years old, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. After performing a propensity score matching, the early invasive strategy was still associated with lower all-cause mortality [HR (hazard ratio) 0.61, 95% CI (95% confidence interval) (0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (95%CI 0.54-0.71)] during long-term follow-up.

Using existing technology better: Improving outcomes with the HeartWare left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: The HeartWare left ventricular assist device has been in use for over 12 years. We sought to determine how outcomes at our centre have improved over time. METHODS: Review of electronic hospital records at the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. RESULTS: A total of 255 first time adult implants were divided into 2 eras: Era 1: 2009-2015 (N = 154) and Era 2: 2016-2020 (N = 101). We prospectively aimed to avoid higher risk Intermacs Classifications in Era 2, which resulted in significant changes in Intermacs class to lower risk in Era 2 (P < 0.001). There was a significant improvement in survival in Era 2, with 1 year survival increasing from 70 to 80% (P < 0.05). This was particularly associated with lower 30 day mortality in Era 2 (1.7 ± 2.3 vs 15.5 ± 7%, P < 0.005). This was associated with better right ventricular function in Era 2, and there was a trend to more temporary right ventricular assist devices used in Era 2 (28 ± 13 vs 12 ± 14%, P = 0.06). Deaths from intracranial haemorrhage, sepsis and right heart failure were unchanged between eras, though there was a trend towards less deaths in Era 2 from combined thromboses deaths (stroke and device thrombosis; 3.3 ± 5.4 vs 11.1 ± 7.4%, P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Better patient selection in association with more use of temporary right ventricular assist support has resulted in a significant improvement in survival. Intracranial haemorrhage, sepsis and right heart failure remain significant problems.

Markers of Right Ventricular Dysfunction Predict Maximal Exercise Capacity After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves functional capacity, on average LVAD patients are unable to achieve the aerobic capacity of normal healthy subjects or mild heart failure patients. The aim of this study was to examine if markers of right ventricular (RV) function influence maximal exercise capacity. This was a single-center prospective study that enrolled 20 consecutive HeartWare ventricular assist device patients who were admitted at the Freeman Hospital (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) for a heart transplant assessment from August 2017 to October 2018. Mean peak oxygen consumption (Peak VO2) was 14.0 ± 5.0 ml/kg/min, and mean peak age and gender-adjusted percent predicted oxygen consumption (%VO2) was 40.0% ± 11.5%. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on the median peak VO2, so each group consisted of 10 patients (50%). Right-sided and pulmonary pressures were consistently higher in the group with poorer exercise tolerance. Patients with poor exercise tolerance (peak VO2 below the median) had higher right atrial pressures at rest (10.6 ± 6.4 vs. 4.3 mmHg ± 3.2; p = 0.02) and the increase with passive leg raising was significantly greater than those with preserved exercise tolerance (peak VO2 above the median). Patients with poor functional capacity also had greater RV dimensions (4.4 cm ± 0.5 vs. 3.7 cm ± 0.5; p = 0.02) and a higher incidence of significant tricuspid regurgitation (moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation in five patients in the poor exercise capacity group vs. none in the preserved exercise capacity group; p = 0.03). In conclusion, echocardiographic and hemodynamic markers of RV dysfunction discriminate between preserved and nonpreserved exercise capacity in HeartWare ventricular assist device patients.

[Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry]. / Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P = .486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P = .622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P = .638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P = .798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P = .915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.

Sex-related differences in long-term mortality and heart failure in a contemporary cohort of patients with NSTEACS. The cardiochus-HSUJ registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is insufficient data regarding sex-related prognostic differences in patients with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). We performed a sex-specific analysis of cardiovascular outcomes after NSTEACS using a large contemporary cohort of patients from two tertiary hospitals. METHODS: This work is a retrospective analysis from a prospective registry, that included 5,686 consecutive NSTEACS patients from two Spanish University hospitals between the years 2005 and 2017. We performed a propensity score matching to obtain a well-balanced subset of individuals with the same clinical characteristics, resulting in 3,120 patients. Cox regression models performed survival analyses once the proportional risk test was verified. RESULTS: Among the study participants, 1,572 patients (27.6%) were women. The mean follow-up was 60.0 months (standard deviation of 32 months). Women had a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with men (OR (Odds ratio) 1.27, CI (confidence interval) 95% 1.08-1.49), heart failure (HF) hospitalization (OR 1.39, CI 95% 1.18-1.63) and risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.10, CI 95% 1.08-1.49). After a propensity score matching, female gender was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of total mortality (OR 0.77, CI 95% 0.65-0.90) with a similar risk of cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.86, CI 0.71-1.03) and HF hospitalization (OR 0.92, CI 95% 0.68-1.23). After baseline adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was lower in women, whereas the risk of HF remained similar among sexes. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients with NSTEACS, women are at similar risk of developing early and late HF admissions, and have better survival compared with men, with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The implementation of NSTEACS guideline recommendations in women, including early revascularization, seems to be accompanied by improved early and long-term prognosis.

Effect of Preoperative Tricuspid and/or Mitral Regurgitation on Development of Late Right-Sided Heart Failure After Insertion of the HeartWare Left Ventricular Assist Device.

Right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Although multiple predictors of early RHF have been described, information on late RHF is scarce. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of late RHF in left ventricular assist device patients. A retrospective analysis of all adult patients who underwent HeartWare-ventricular assist device implantation as a bridge to transplantation in a single-centre was performed. Late RHF was defined as RHF requiring rehospitalization after 30 days of implantation. A total of 16 (10.3%) patients from 156 implantations developed late RHF. Median time to late RHF onset was 182.5 (interquartile range 105 to 618) days. Patients developing late RHF were older at surgery. A significantly higher rate of moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation before implantation was found in patients presenting with late RHF (81.2% vs 33.5%; p <0.001). Several echocardiographic parameters at discharge postimplant, such as significant mitral regurgitation, demonstrated a strong association with late RHF. A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that significant preoperative tricuspid regurgitation was the strongest predictor of late RHF (hazard ratio 5.50, 95% confidence interval [1.34 to 22.58]; p = 0.02). Significant mitral regurgitation postimplantation and older age also significantly predicted late RHF. In conclusion, preoperative significant tricuspid regurgitation and mitral regurgitation after implantation predict the occurrence of late RHF.

Left Ventricular Filling Pressures Contribute to Exercise Limitation in Patients with Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

We sought to determine hemodynamic mechanisms of exercise intolerance in a group of patients with the HeartWare ventricular assist device (VAD) compared to a group of heart failure patients. Twenty VAD and 22 heart failure patients underwent symptom-limited active straight leg raising exercise during right heart catheterization with thermodilution (TD), and upright cycling cardiopulmonary stress testing with cardiac output measurement by inert gas rebreathing (IGR) method. The TD and IGR exercise cardiac indexes were higher in VAD compared with heart failure group (both P < 0.05), although there was only a borderline increase in peak exercise oxygen consumption (VO2) (P = 0.06). Baseline and exercise right heart catheterization pressures were not significantly different between the two groups. The only significant independent predictors of peak VO2 in the heart failure group were exercise heart rate and cardiac index (both P < 0.05). In contrast, for the VAD group only, resting pulmonary arterial wedge and pulmonary arterial mean pressures were independently related to peak VO2 (both P < 0.05). Thus, in heart failure, exercise cardiac index is an important limitation to exercise capacity, and VADs increase exercise cardiac index. However, in VAD patients, this only produces limited benefits as increased pulmonary and pulmonary wedge pressures limit increases in exercise capacity.

Initial conservative management strategy of HeartWare left ventricular assist device thrombosis with intravenous heparin or bivalirudin.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Pump thrombosis is a serious left ventricular assist device complication, though there are no guidelines regarding its treatment. The main aim of this study was to describe a strategy of intravenous anticoagulation as the initial treatment in these patients and then to compare intravenous heparin with bivalirudin. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received a HeartWare left ventricular assist device from July 2009 to March 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Patients developing a pump thrombosis were selected, and treatment, outcomes and complications were recorded. RESULTS: During this period of time (116 months), 220 patients underwent HeartWare left ventricular assist device implantation and 57 developed pump thrombosis, with an incidence rate of first pump thrombosis of 0.17 events per patient-year of support (incidence rate of all episodes of pump thrombosis: 0.30 events per patient-year of support). All the patients were initially treated medically, predominantly with either intravenous heparin (n = 26) or bivalirudin (n = 16). Patients treated with bivalirudin during the first pump thrombosis episode had less subsequent re-thrombosis episodes (18.7% vs 57.7%, p < 0.05). In addition, percentage time in therapeutic range was greater for bivalirudin compared with heparin (68.5% ± 16.9% vs 37.4% ± 31.0%, p < 0.01). During the first pump thrombosis episode, 26.3% of the patients needed surgery (left ventricular assist device exchange (n = 8), transplant (n = 6) or decommissioning (n = 1)). The overall survival at 1 year was 61.4%, and there was no significant difference in survival. CONCLUSION: Left ventricular assist device thrombosis is a serious life-threatening complication; hence, we propose an initial conservative management of pump thrombosis with enhanced intravenous anticoagulation with either intravenous heparin or bivalirudin, with surgery reserved for refractory cases.

The Risk of Cardiovascular Events After an Acute Coronary Event Remains High, Especially During the First Year, Despite Revascularization.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is little information on the incidence and predictors of infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death after acute coronary syndrome. We investigated these aspects and developed tools for predicting these events according to the time of their occurrence. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of 4858 patients who survived an acute coronary event. We analyzed the incidence and predictors of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death during the first year (n=4858) vs successive years (n=4345 patients free of composite events during the first year). RESULTS: There were 329 events in the first year (cumulative incidence function: 7.3% person-years) and 616 in successive years (21.5% person-years; follow-up 4.9±2.4 years). The risk of events during the first year per tertile was 2.5% person-years in the low-risk tertile (< 3 points), 4.8% person-years in the intermediate-risk tertile (3-6 points), and 15.5% person-years in the high-risk tertile (> 6 points) (P<.001). The risk of events in the cohort that had a combined event in successive years increased from 10.7% person-years in the low-risk tertile (< 3 points) to 40.3% person-years in the high-risk tertile (> 6 points) (P<.001). The 2 scales showed the following predictive indexes: C statistic, 0.74 and 0.69, respectively; P (Hosmer-Lemeshow test)≥0.44 CONCLUSION: The risk of recurrence of cardiovascular events remains high after acute coronary syndrome. The level of risk can be easily quantified with acceptable predictive ability.

Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID / Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry

Introducción y objetivos La Organización Mundial de la Salud calificó la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) como una pandemia global. No está claro si el tratamiento previo con inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina (IECA) y antagonistas de los receptores de angiotensina (ARA-II) tiene un impacto en el pronóstico de los pacientes infectados con COVID-19. El objetivo fue evaluar la implicación clínica del tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en el pronóstico de la COVID-19. Métodos Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de cohortes basado en todos los habitantes del área de salud. El análisis de los resultados principales (mortalidad, insuficiencia cardiaca, hospitalización, ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) y eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores [un compuesto de mortalidad e insuficiencia cardiaca]), se ajustó mediante modelos de regresión logística multivariada y modelos de coincidencia de puntaje de propensión. Resultados De una población total, 447.979 habitantes, 965 pacientes (0,22%), fueron diagnosticados de infección por COVID-19, 210 (21,8%) estaban bajo tratamiento con IECA o ARA-II en el momento del diagnóstico. El tratamiento con IECA/ARA-II (combinado e individualmente) no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad (OR=0,62; IC95%, 0,17-2,26; p=0,486), insuficiencia cardiaca (OR=1,37; IC95%, 0,39-4,77; p=0,622), tasa de hospitalización (OR=0,85; IC95%, 0,45-1,64; p=0,638), ingreso en UCI (OR=0,87; IC95%, 0,30-2,50; p=0,798) y cardiopatía aguda grave eventos (OR=1,06; IC95%, 0,39-2,83; p=0,915). En el análisis del subgrupos de pacientes que requirieron hospitalización, el efecto se mantuvo neutral. Conclusiones El tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad, la aparición de insuficiencia cardíaca, ni en la necesidad de hospitalización ni ingreso en UCI. La supresión de IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 ... . (AU)

Introduction and objectives Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. Results Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. Conclusions Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies. (AU)

Prognostic Benefit of Beta-blockers After Acute Coronary Syndrome With Preserved Systolic Function. Still Relevant Today?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The scientific evidence for using beta-blockers after acute coronary syndrome stems from studies conducted in the days before coronary revascularization and in patients with ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this study was to analyze the current long-term prognostic benefit of beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3236 patients with acute coronary syndrome and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%. We performed a propensity-matched analysis to draw up two groups of 555 patients paired according to whether or not they had been treated with beta-blockers. The prognostic value of beta-blockers to predict mortality during follow-up was analyzed using Cox regression. RESULTS: During the follow-up (median, 5.2 years), 506 patients (15.6%) died. Patients treated with beta-blockers (n=2277 [70.4%]) had a lower mortality rate (11.6% vs 25.2%; P<.001). After propensity score matching, we found that mortality during follow-up was still lower in the beta-blocker group (14.4% vs 18.9%; P=.020). Therefore, this treatment was an independent protective factor after adjusting for confounding variables in the multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio=0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.87; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blocker treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction is associated with lower long-term mortality.

Impact of Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Ventricular Fibrillation on Long-term Incidence of Sudden Cardiac Death.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is little information on the effect of acute coronary syndrome complicated by ventricular fibrillation on the long-term incidence of sudden cardiac death. We analyzed this effect in a contemporary cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We studied 5302 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome between December 2003 and December 2012. We compared mortality during and after hospitalization according to the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation. RESULTS: Ventricular fibrillation was observed in 163 (3.1%) patients, and was early onset in 72.4% of these patients. In-hospital mortality was 36.2% in the group with ventricular fibrillation and 4.7% in the group without (p<.001). After a mean follow-up of 4.7 years (standard deviation, 2.6 years), mortality was 30.7% in the ventricular fibrillation group and 24.7% in the other group (P=.23). After adjusting for confounding variables, the presence of ventricular fibrillation was not associated with an increased risk of death in the follow-up period (hazard ratio=1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.87). The cause of death was established in 72% of patients. The incidence of sudden death was 12.9% in the ventricular fibrillation group and 11.9% in the other group (P=.71). Cardiovascular-cause mortality was also similar between the 2 groups (35.5% and 34.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute coronary syndrome complicated by ventricular fibrillation who survive the in-hospital phase do not appear to be at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death or other cardiovascular-cause death.

Risk stratification for the development of heart failure after acute coronary syndrome at the time of hospital discharge: Predictive ability of GRACE risk score.

BACKGROUND: Despite encouraging declines in the incidence of heart failure (HF) complicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS), it remains a common problem with high mortality. Being able to identify patients at high risk of HF after ACS would have great clinical and economic impact. With this study, we assessed the usefulness of the GRACE score to predict HF after an ACS. METHODS: We studied 4137 consecutive patients discharged with diagnosis of ACS. We analyzed HF incidence, timing, and association with the follow-up mortality. Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to assess the accuracy of the GRACE risk score to predict HF admissions in follow-up (median 3.1 years). RESULTS: A total of 433 patients (10.5%) developed HF. GRACE score was an independent predictor of HF after ACS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.03, p<0.001]. A risk gradient for the development of HF with GRACE risk score was shown: high- and moderate-GRACE risk groups have been linked to a sixfold and twofold increased risk of HF. This risk gradient was maintained in patients with and without prior history of HF, in ST elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction groups, and in patients with depressed and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. The development of HF was associated with high mortality (54.5% vs 13.4%; HR=4.48; 95% CI: 3.84-5.24; p<0.001). After adjusting for GRACE risk score, HF development resulted as an independent predictor of mortality. CONCLUSION: GRACE risk score has been shown to provide clinically relevant stratification of follow-up HF admission risk at the time of hospital discharge in patients with ACS.

Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID / mpact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: La Organización Mundial de la Salud calificó la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) como una pandemia global. No está claro si el tratamiento previo con inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina (IECA) y antagonistas de los receptores de angiotensina (ARA-II) tiene un impacto en el pronóstico de los pacientes infectados con COVID-19. El objetivo fue evaluar la implicación clínica del tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en el pronóstico de la COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de cohortes basado en todos los habitantes del área de salud. El análisis de los resultados principales (mortalidad, insuficiencia cardiaca, hospitalización, ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) y eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores [un compuesto de mortalidad e insuficiencia cardiaca]), se ajustó mediante modelos de regresión logística multivariada y modelos de coincidencia de puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De una población total, 447.979 habitantes, 965 pacientes (0,22%), fueron diagnosticados de infección por COVID-19, 210 (21,8%) estaban bajo tratamiento con IECA o ARA-II en el momento del diagnóstico. El tratamiento con IECA/ARA-II (combinado e individualmente) no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad (OR=0,62; IC95%, 0,17-2,26; p = 0,486), insuficiencia cardiaca (OR=1,37; IC95%, 0,39-4,77; p = 0,622), tasa de hospitalización (OR=0,85; IC95%, 0,45-1,64; p = 0,638), ingreso en UCI (OR=0,87; IC95%, 0,30-2,50; p = 0,798) y cardiopatía aguda grave eventos (OR=1,06; IC95%, 0,39-2,83; p = 0,915). En el análisis del subgrupos de pacientes que requirieron hospitalización, el efecto se mantuvo neutral. CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad, la aparición de insuficiencia cardíaca, ni en la necesidad de hospitalización ni ingreso en UCI. La supresión de IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no estaría justificada en ningún caso, de acuerdo a las recomendaciones actuales de las sociedades científicas y las agencias gubernamentales

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies

Is 6-month GRACE risk score a useful tool to predict stroke after an acute coronary syndrome?

OBJECTIVES: The risk of stroke after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has increased. The aim of this study was to do a comparative validation of the 6-month GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score and CH2DS2VASc risk score to predict the risk of post-ACS ischaemic stroke. METHODS: This was a retrospective study carried out in a single centre with 4229 patients with ACS discharged between 2004 and 2010 (66.9±12.8 years, 27.9% women, 64.2% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention). The primary end point is the occurrence of an ischaemic stroke during follow-up (median 4.6 years, IQR 2.7-7.1 years). RESULTS: 184 (4.4%) patients developed an ischaemic stroke; 153 (83.2%) had sinus rhythm and 31 (16.9%) had atrial fibrillation. Patients with stroke were older, with higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke and previous coronary artery disease. The HR for CHA2DS2VASc was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.48, p<0.001) and for GRACE, HR was 1.02(95% CI, 1.01 to 1.03, p<0.001). Both risk scores show adequate discriminative ability (c-index 0.63±0.02 and 0.60±0.02 for CHA2DS2VASc and GRACE, respectively). In the reclassification method there was no difference (Net Reclassification Improvement 1.98%, p=0.69). Comparing moderate-risk/high-risk patients with low-risk patients, both risk scores showed very high negative predictive value (98.5% for CHA2DS2VASc, 98.1% for GRACE). The sensitivity of CHA2DS2VASc score was higher than the GRACE risk score (95.1% vs 87.0%), whereas specificity was lower (14.4% vs 30.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month GRACE model is a clinical risk score that facilitates the identification of individual patients who are at high risk of ischaemic stroke after ACS discharge.