Influence of the pressure wire on the fractional flow reserve calculation: CFD analysis of an ideal vessel and clinical patients with stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) is generally considered the gold standard in hemodynamics to assess the impact of a stenosis on the blood flow. The standard procedure to measure involves the displacement of a pressure guide along the circulatory system until it is placed next to the lesion to be analyzed. The main objective of the present study is to analyze the influence of the pressure guide on the invasive FFR measurements and its implications in clinical practice. METHODS: We studied the influence of pressure wires on the measurement of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) through a combination of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations using 45 clinical patient data with 58 lesions and ideal geometries. The analysis is conducted considering patients that were subjected to a computer tomography and also have direct measurements using a pressure guide. Influence of the stenosis severity, degree of occlusion and blood viscosity has also been studied. RESULTS: The influence of pressure wires specifically affects severe stenosis with a lumen diameter reduction of 50 % or greater. This type of stenosis leads to reduced hyperemic flow and increased coronary pressure drop. Thus, we identified that the placement of wires during FFR measurements results in partial obstruction of the coronary artery lumen, leading to increased pressure drop and subsequent reduction in blood flow. The severity of low FFR values associated with severe stenosis may be prone to overestimation when compared to stenosis without severe narrowing. These results have practical implications, particularly in the interpretation of lesions falling within the "gray zone" (0,75-0,80). CONCLUSIONS: The pressure wire's presence significantly alters the flow on severe lesions, which has an impact on the FFR calculation. In contrast, the impact of the pressure wire appears to be reduced when the FFR is larger than 0.8. The findings provide critical information for physicians, emphasizing the need for cautious interpretation of FFR values, particularly in severe stenosis. It also offers insights into improving the correlation between FFRct models and invasive measurements by incorporating the influence of pressure wires.

Videolaryngoscope versus conventional technique for insertion of a transesophageal echocardiography probe in intubated ICU patients (VIDLARECO trial): A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion in intubated critically ill patients can be difficult, leading to complications, such as gastric bleeding or lesions in the oropharyngeal mucosa. We hypothesised that the use of a videolaryngoscope would facilitate the first attempt at insertion of the transesophageal echocardiogram probe and would decrease the incidence of complications compared to the conventional insertion technique. METHODS: In this clinical trial, patients were randomly assigned the insertion of a transesophageal echocardiogram probe using a videolaryngoscope or conventional technique. The primary outcome was the successful transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion on the first attempt. The secondary outcomes included total success rate, number of insertion attempts, and incidence of pharyngeal complications. RESULTS: A total of 100 intubated critically ill patients were enrolled. The success rate of transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion on the first attempt was higher in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (90% vs. 58%; absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI 16%-48%; p < 0.001). The overall success rate was higher in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (100% vs. 72%; absolute difference, 28%; 95% CI 16%-40%; p < 0.001). The incidence of pharyngeal mucosal injury was smaller in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (14% vs. 52%; absolute difference, 38%; 95% CI 21%-55%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that in intubated critically ill patients required transesophageal echocardiogram, the use of videolaryngoscope resulted in higher successful insertion on the first attempt with lower rate of complications when compared with the conventional insertion technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980976.

[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.

[Chronic renal failure is associated with worse outcome after implantation of sirolimus eluting stent]. / La insuficiencia renal crónica se asocia a un peor pronóstico tras implante de stent liberador de sirolimus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic renal failure (CRF) is an emergent pathology in industrialized countries and is associated with high prevalence of coronary artery disease. Our aim is to determine the influence of CRF in the appearance of adverse cardiovascular events after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in a non selected cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study with a cohort of 461 patients who received one or more sirolimus-eluting stent between September 2002 and December 2005 at our institution. We evaluated the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events during the follow-up period and their relation with chronic kidney disease. We used the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation to calculate the GFR. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 42 months (SD ± 13) and the mean age was 61 ± 11 years and 85 percent of the group were men. Chronic renal failure was present in 50 patients, 11 percent of the cohort. In a multivariate model, after adjustment for age, sex, left ventricle election fraction, anemia, diabetes, hypertension, Killip class and stent thrombosis, chronic renal failure was an independent predictive factor of death from any cause (hazard ratio, 3.82; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.41-10.33, p = 0.008), and an significant risk factor for restenosis (hazard ratio 3.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01-11.97, p = 0.045). Significant differences were not found in thrombosis between patients with or without CRF (8% vs 3.4%, p = 0,109), although a trend was observed in the CRF group. There no were statistical association with need for a new target vessel revascularization (TVR) after coronary intervention either (18.8% versus 10.5%, p = 0.094). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of chronic renal failure in patients with coronary disease is associated with higher risk of restenosis and is a potent predictor of mortality after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.