RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has differentially impacted cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality worldwide. Causes of death misclassification may be one of the reasons. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on CVD mortality in Brazil, comparing underlying causes (UCs) and multiple causes (MCs) of death. STUDY DESIGN: Ecological time-series study. METHODS: An ecological, time-series study was conducted analysing age-standardised death rates for CVD, from epidemiological week (EW) 10/2020 to 39/2021, using data from the Mortality Information System, Brazil. CVD was defined using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) coding, if reported as UC or MC of death. Observed and expected data (mean for the same EW, 2017-2019) were compared. Risk ratios (RiRs) were analysed, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Age-standardised mortality rate for CVD as UC of death was 165.8 (95%CI: 165.4-166.3) per 100,000 inhabitants, similar to what was expected (165.6/100,000, 95%CI: 165.2-166.1, RiR = 1.00). There was increased out-of-hospital mortality (RiR = 1.18; 95%CI: 1.17-1.19) and deaths of ill-defined causes (RiR = 1.43; 95%CI: 1.42-1.44). The increase in out-of-hospital deaths was more pronounced in the North (RiR = 1.33; 95%CI 1.30-1.36) region, with a less resilient health system. Conversely, as MCs of death, there was a 10% increase in CVD mortality (observed: 243.2 [95%CI: 242.7-243.7], expected: 221.6 [95%CI: 221.1-222.1] per 100,000). An increase also occurred in the North and Central West regions (RiR = 1.16; 95%CI: 1.15-1.18), among men (RiR = 1.11; 95%CI: 1.11-1.12) and individuals aged ≥60 years (RiR = 1.11; 95%CI: 1.10-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, mortality rates for CVD as MCs of death increased in Brazil, whereas as UC mortality rates did not change. Higher out-of-hospital mortality, misclassification, and competing causes of death may explain this pattern.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating anticoagulation during the early postoperative period following mechanical heart valve implantation. METHODS: Five literature databases were searched to assess the rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events among patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC), both with and without bridging anticoagulation therapy with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The studies' results were pooled via a mixed effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity (I(2) ) and publication bias were both evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies including 9534 patients were included. The bleeding rates were 1.8% (95% confidence interval CI 1.0-3.3) in the group receiving OAC, 2.2% (95% CI 0.9-5.3) in the OAC + UFH group, and 5.5% (95% CI 2.9-10.4) in the OAC + LMWH group (P = 0.042). The thromboembolic event rate was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5-2.9) in the group receiving OAC, as compared with 1.1% (95% CI 0.7-1.8) when the bridging therapy groups were combined as follows: OAC + UFH and OAC + LMWH (P = 0.035). Most of the analyses showed moderate heterogeneity and negative test results for publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging therapy following cardiac valve surgery was associated with a lower thromboembolic event rate, although the difference was small, with considerable overlap of the CIs. Direct comparisons are missing. Bridging therapy with UFH appears to be safe; however, this observation has a risk of bias. Early bridging therapy with LMWH appears to be associated with consistently high bleeding rates across multiple analyses. On the basis of the quality of the included studies, more trials are necessary to establish the clinical relevance of bridging therapy and the safety of LMWH.