Treatment of Aortoiliac Occlusive Lesions by Aortic Robotic Surgery: Learning Curve and Midterm Outcome.

BACKGROUD: The learning curve and midterm results of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) revascularization by robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) surgery may be known. METHODS: A prospective single-center study was conducted in the vascular surgery department of Georges Pompidou European Hospital (Paris, France). Patients with AIOD treated by RAL from February 2014 to February 2019 were included. Demographic characteristics, past medical history, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) lesions classifications, mortality, primary and secondary patency, as well as complication rates were collected. Safety was analyzed by the cumulative sum control chart method with a conversion rate of 10%, operative time by cumulative average-time model, and primary and secondary patency by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included, 18 (25.7%) with TASC C lesions and 52 (74.3%) with TASC D lesions. Before discharge, 14 (24.3%) patients had surgical complications. Among them, 10 (14.3%) required at least one reintervention. One (1.4%) patient died during the hospitalization. The learning curve in terms of safety (conversion rate) was 13 cases with an operating time of 220 minutes after 35 patients. During follow-up (median 37 months [21; 49]), 63 patients (91.3%) improved their symptoms, 53 (76.8%) became asymptomatic, and 3 graft limb occlusions occurred. The primary patency at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months was 94%, 92%, 92%, and 92%, respectively, while the secondary patency for the same intervals was 100%, 98.1%, 98.1%, and 98.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery in AIOD revascularization seems safe and effective; allowing to treat patients with few comorbidities and severe lesions, in a dedicated center experienced in RAL, with excellent patency. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to confirm safety.

Thoracic Endovascular Repair after Total Aortic Arch Replacement with Frozen Elephant Trunk for Type a Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: The management of residual aortic dissection after initial type A repair with the Frozen elephant trunk technique remains mostly unexplored. This work aimed to evaluate endovascular second-stage surgery for patients with residual aortic dissection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients that underwent Type A aortic repair with Frozen elephant trunk, followed by a second-stage endovascular procedure was done from March 2016 to December 2021. The primary outcome was aortic-related adverse events or mortality, and secondary outcomes were aortic remodeling and perioperative complications. Remodeling was assessed by comparing the difference in ratios for true lumen/total aortic diameters on pre-operative and follow-up scans. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients underwent second-stage surgery after Type A repair during the study period (7 thoracic endovascular aortic repair extensions, 1 STABLE/PETTICOAT, and 26 STABILISE). Median follow-up was 23 months (range 2-66 months). There were no perioperative deaths or major complications and 1 reoperation for left subclavian re-embolization. At the last follow-up, there was no aortic-related mortality. There were 5 aortic-related adverse events, including another subclavian re-embolization and a preplanned open conversion. Risk factors were connective tissue disorders (P = 0.01) and aortic aneurysms >55 mm (P = 0.03). Distal remodeling reached statistical significance in all segments (P < 0.01) and was greater for patients treated with the STABILISE technique when compared to extended thoracic endovascular aortic repair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Second-stage endovascular management of residual aortic dissection after initial Frozen elephant trunk repair showed excellent perioperative and good midterm outcomes and induced significant remodeling of the entire aorta in most cases, particularly with the STABILISE procedure.

Platelet activation and coronavirus disease 2019 mortality: Insights from coagulopathy, antiplatelet therapy and inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an inflammatory cytokine burst and a prothrombotic coagulopathy. Platelets may contribute to microthrombosis, and constitute a therapeutic target in COVID-19 therapy. AIM: To assess if platelet activation influences mortality in COVID-19. METHODS: We explored two cohorts of patients with COVID-19. Cohort A included 208 ambulatory and hospitalized patients with varying clinical severities and non-COVID patients as controls, in whom plasma concentrations of the soluble platelet activation biomarkers CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and P-selectin (sP-sel) were quantified within the first 48hours following hospitalization. Cohort B was a multicentre cohort of 2878 patients initially admitted to a medical ward. In both cohorts, the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In cohort A, median circulating concentrations of sCD40L and sP-sel were only increased in the 89 critical patients compared with non-COVID controls: sP-sel 40,059 (interquartile range 26,876-54,678)pg/mL; sCD40L 1914 (interquartile range 1410-2367)pg/mL (P<0.001 for both). A strong association existed between sP-sel concentration and in-hospital mortality (Kaplan-Meier log-rank P=0.004). However, in a Cox model considering biomarkers of immunothrombosis, sP-sel was no longer associated with mortality, in contrast to coagulopathy evaluated with D-dimer concentration (hazard ratio 4.86, 95% confidence interval 1.64-12.50). Moreover, in cohort B, a Cox model adjusted for co-morbidities suggested that prehospitalization antiplatelet agents had no significant impact on in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.80-1.37; P=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Although we observed an association between excessive biomarkers of platelet activation and in-hospital mortality, our findings rather suggest that coagulopathy is more central in driving disease progression, which may explain why prehospitalization antiplatelet drugs were not a protective factor against mortality in our multicentre cohort.

Machine learning-based scoring system to predict in-hospital outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still hard to predict, even after several months of dealing with the pandemic. AIMS: To develop and validate a score to predict outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: All consecutive adults hospitalized for COVID-19 from February to April 2020 were included in a nationwide observational study. Primary composite outcome was transfer to an intensive care unit from an emergency department or conventional ward, or in-hospital death. A score that estimates the risk of experiencing the primary outcome was constructed from a derivation cohort using stacked LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator), and was tested in a validation cohort. RESULTS: Among 2873 patients analysed (57.9% men; 66.6±17.0 years), the primary outcome occurred in 838 (29.2%) patients: 551 (19.2%) were transferred to an intensive care unit; and 287 (10.0%) died in-hospital without transfer to an intensive care unit. Using stacked LASSO, we identified 11 variables independently associated with the primary outcome in multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort (n=2313), including demographics (sex), triage vitals (body temperature, dyspnoea, respiratory rate, fraction of inspired oxygen, blood oxygen saturation) and biological variables (pH, platelets, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase, estimated glomerular filtration rate). The Critical COVID-19 France (CCF) risk score was then developed, and displayed accurate calibration and discrimination in the derivation cohort, with C-statistics of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.80). The CCF risk score performed significantly better (i.e. higher C-statistics) than the usual critical care risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: The CCF risk score was built using data collected routinely at hospital admission to predict outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This score holds promise to improve early triage of patients and allocation of healthcare resources.

D-dimer, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, and creatinine are reliable decision-making biomarkers in life-sustaining therapies withholding and withdrawing during COVID-19 outbreak.

Background: The decision for withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) in COVID-19 patients is currently based on a collegial and mainly clinical assessment. In the context of a global pandemic and overwhelmed health system, the question of LST decision support for COVID-19 patients using prognostic biomarkers arises. Methods: In a multicenter study in 24 French hospitals, 2878 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical departments from 26 February to 20 April 2020 were included. In a propensity-matched population, we compared the clinical, biological, and management characteristics and survival of patients with and without LST decision using Student's t-test, the chi-square test, and the Cox model, respectively. Results: An LST was decided for 591 COVID-19 patients (20.5%). These 591 patients with LST decision were secondarily matched (1:1) based on age, sex, body mass index, and cancer history with 591 COVID-19 patients with no LST decision. The patients with LST decision had significantly more cardiovascular diseases, such as high blood pressure (72.9 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.02), stroke (19.3 vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001), renal failure (30.4 vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001), and heart disease (22.5 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001). Upon admission, LST patients were more severely attested by a qSOFA score ≥2 (66.5 vs. 58.8%, p = 0.03). Biologically, LST patients had significantly higher values of D-dimer, markers of heart failure (BNP and NT-pro-BNP), and renal damage (creatinine) (p < 0.001). Their evolutions were more often unfavorable (in-hospital mortality) than patients with no LST decision (41.5 vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001). By combining the three biomarkers (D-dimer, BNP and/or NT-proBNP, and creatinine), the proportion of LST increased significantly with the number of abnormally high biomarkers (24, 41.3, 48.3, and 60%, respectively, for none, one, two, and three high values of biomarkers, trend p < 0.01). Conclusion: The concomitant increase in D-dimer, BNP/NT-proBNP, and creatinine during the admission of a COVID-19 patient could represent a reliable and helpful tool for LST decision. Circulating biomarker might potentially provide additional information for LST decision in COVID-19.

Surgical Treatment of Femoral Artery Bifurcation Without Material: Technique and Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Complete eversion of the femoral tripod is interesting to reduce clinical consequences of wound infection, in particular for patients at a high risk (e.g., obese, diabetics, cancer). Experience and follow-up of this technique are scarce. The different technical possibilities and results are reported here. METHODS: A single-center prospective study including patients operated on for femoral occlusive lesions using eversion of the common femoral artery and its bifurcation. Clinical and imaging preoperative data, surgical technique, and follow-up are detailed. RESULTS: Thirty five patients (37 limbs) have been included between June 2014 and April 2016. The mean Rutherford index was 3.6 and 65% of the patients were claudicants. Lesions were limited to the common femoral artery in 14 (38%) of the cases and spread to the superficial femoral artery in 2 (7%) and to the 3 branches in 21 (57%) of the cases, respectively. Postoperatively, one death, one major amputation, and 3 reinterventions were noted, resulting in an 8% rate of major complications. The mean follow-up was 37 months. At this time, 11 major adverse cardiovascular events, 9 deaths, and no additional major amputation were noted. The mean Rutherford index was 1.7 (P < 0.001) and 3 reinterventions were necessary (one for septic occlusion at 3 months and 2 for restenosis at 12 and 42 months), translating into primary and secondary patency rates of 93.3% and 96.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This work further confirms that eversion of the femoral tripod is safe and effective. This experience adds to the existing body of the literature and describes alternative techniques of eversion. The technique should be considered when treating patients at a high risk of postoperative infection.

Prognostic value of right ventricular dilatation in patients with COVID-19: a multicentre study.

AIMS: Although cardiac involvement has prognostic significance in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with severe forms, few studies have explored the prognostic role of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). We investigated the link between TTE parameters and prognosis in COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 24 French hospitals were retrospectively included. Comprehensive data, including clinical and biological parameters, were recorded at admission. Focused TTE was performed during hospitalization, according to clinical indication. Patients were followed for a primary composite outcome of death or transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) during hospitalization. Among 2878 patients, 445 (15%) underwent TTE. Most of these had cardiovascular risk factors, a history of cardiovascular disease, and were on cardiovascular treatments. Dilatation and dysfunction were observed in, respectively, 12% (48/412) and 23% (102/442) of patients for the left ventricle, and in 12% (47/407) and 16% (65/402) for the right ventricle (RV). Primary composite outcome occurred in 44% (n = 196) of patients [9% (n = 42) for death without ICU transfer and 35% (n = 154) for admission to ICU]. RV dilatation was the only TTE parameter associated with the primary outcome. After adjustment, male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 - 2.25; P = 0.02], higher body mass index (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.18; P = 0.01), anticoagulation (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 - 0.86; P = 0.01), and RV dilatation (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.64; P = 0.03) remained independently associated with the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Echocardiographic evaluation of RV dilatation could be useful for assessing risk of severe COVID-19 developing in hospitalized patients.

Cardiovascular Characteristics and Outcomes of Young Patients with COVID-19.

Although 18-45-year-old (y-o) patients represent a significant proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, data concerning the young population remain scarce. The Critical COVID France (CCF) study was an observational study including consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 24 centers between 26 February and 20 April 2020. The primary composite outcome included transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) complications. Among 2868 patients, 321 (11.2%) patients were in the 18-45-y-o range. In comparison with older patients, young patients were more likely to have class 2 obesity and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia. The primary outcome occurred less frequently in 18-45-y-o patients in comparison with patients > 45 years old (y/o) (16.8% vs. 30.7%, p < 0.001). The 18-45-y-o patients presented with pericarditis (2.2% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.003) and myocarditis (2.5% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.002) more frequently than patients >45 y/o. Acute heart failure occurred less frequently in 18-45-y-o patients (0.9% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001), while thrombotic complications were similar in young and older patients. Whereas both transfer to the ICU and in-hospital death occurred less frequently in young patients, COVID-19 seemed to have a particular CV impact in this population.

Intermediate- vs. Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted in Medical Ward: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: Microthrombosis and large-vessel thrombosis are the main triggers of COVID-19 worsening. The optimal anticoagulant regimen in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards remains unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (AC) among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards. Methods and results: We used a large French multicentric retrospective study enrolling 2,878 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards. After exclusion of patients who had an AC treatment before hospitalization, we generated a propensity-score-matched cohort of patients who were treated with intermediate-dose or standard-dose prophylactic AC between February 26 and April 20, 2020 (intermediate-dose, n = 261; standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, n = 763). The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality; this occurred in 23 of 261 (8.8%) patients in the intermediate-dose group and 74 of 783 (9.4%) patients in the standard-dose prophylactic AC group (p = 0.85); while time to death was also the same in both the treatment groups (11.5 and 11.6 days, respectively, p = 0.17). We did not observe any difference regarding venous and arterial thrombotic events between the intermediate dose and standard dose, respectively (venous thrombotic events: 2.3 vs. 2.4%, p=0.99; arterial thrombotic events: 2.7 vs. 1.2%, p = 0.25). The 30-day Kaplan-Meier curves for in-hospital mortality demonstrate no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.99 (0.63-1.60); p = 0.99). Moreover, we found that no particular subgroup was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards, intermediate-dose prophylactic AC compared with standard-dose prophylactic AC did not result in a significant difference in in-hospital mortality.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France: The Critical COVID-19 France (CCF) study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a public health crisis. Only limited data are available on the characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France. AIMS: To investigate the characteristics, cardiovascular complications and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France. METHODS: The Critical COVID-19 France (CCF) study is a French nationwide study including all consecutive adults with a diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection hospitalized in 24 centres between 26 February and 20 April 2020. Patients admitted directly to intensive care were excluded. Clinical, biological and imaging parameters were systematically collected at hospital admission. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. RESULTS: Of 2878 patients included (mean±SD age 66.6±17.0 years, 57.8% men), 360 (12.5%) died in the hospital setting, of which 7 (20.7%) were transferred to intensive care before death. The majority of patients had at least one (72.6%) or two (41.6%) cardiovascular risk factors, mostly hypertension (50.8%), obesity (30.3%), dyslipidaemia (28.0%) and diabetes (23.7%). In multivariable analysis, older age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.06; P<0.001), male sex (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.11-2.57; P=0.01), diabetes (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.12-2.63; P=0.01), chronic kidney failure (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02-2.41; P=0.04), elevated troponin (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11-2.49; P=0.01), elevated B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0004-2.86; P=0.049) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score ≥2 (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12-2.60; P=0.01) were independently associated with in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In this large nationwide cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in France, cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors were associated with a substantial morbi-mortality burden.

Characteristics and impact of cardiovascular comorbidities on coronavirus disease 2019 in women: A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although women account for up to half of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no specific data have been reported in this population. AIMS: To assess the burden and impact of cardiovascular comorbidities in women with COVID-19. METHODS: All consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across 24 hospitals from 26 February to 20 April 2020 were included. The primary composite outcome was transfer to an intensive care unit or in-hospital death. RESULTS: Among 2878 patients, 1212 (42.1%) were women. Women were older (68.3±18.0 vs. 65.4±16.0 years; P<0.001), but had less prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities than men. Among women, 276 (22.8%) experienced the primary outcome, including 161 (13.3%) transfers to an intensive care unit and 115 (9.5%) deaths without transfer to intensive care unit. The rate of in-hospital death or transfer to an intensive care unit was lower in women versus men (crude hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.72). Age (adjusted HR: 1.05 per 5-year increase, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10), body mass index (adjusted HR: 1.06 per 2-unit increase, 95% CI: 1.02-1.10), chronic kidney disease (adjusted HR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.11-2.22) and heart failure (adjusted HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.22) were independently associated with the primary outcome in women. Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide/N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (adjusted HR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.70-3.44) and troponin (adjusted HR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.39-2.88) concentrations at admission were also associated with the primary outcome, even in women free of previous coronary artery disease or heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Although female sex was associated with a lower risk of transfer to an intensive care unit or in-hospital death, COVID-19 remained associated with considerable morbimortality in women, especially in those with cardiovascular diseases.

History of heart failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Insights from a French registry.

BACKGROUND: Although cardiovascular comorbidities seem to be strongly associated with worse outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data regarding patients with preexisting heart failure are limited. AIMS: To investigate the incidence, characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 with a history of heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: We performed an observational multicentre study including all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 across 24 centres in France from 26 February to 20 April 2020. The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital death or need for orotracheal intubation. RESULTS: Overall, 2809 patients (mean age 66.4±16.9years) were included. Three hundred and seventeen patients (11.2%) had a history of heart failure; among them, 49.2% had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and 50.8% had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. COVID-19 severity at admission, defined by a quick sequential organ failure assessment score>1, was similar in patients with versus without a history of heart failure. Before and after adjustment for age, male sex, cardiovascular comorbidities and quick sequential organ failure assessment score, history of heart failure was associated with the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.90; P=0.02). This result seemed to be mainly driven by a history of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.13-2.27; P=0.01) rather than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.79-1.81; P=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: History of heart failure in patients with COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death or orotracheal intubation. These findings suggest that patients with a history of heart failure, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, should be considered at high risk of clinical deterioration.

D-dimer at hospital admission for COVID-19 are associated with in-hospital mortality, independent of venous thromboembolism: Insights from a French multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with coagulation disorders, in particular high concentrations of D-dimer, and increased frequency of venous thromboembolism. AIM: To explore the association between D-dimer at admission and in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19, with or without symptomatic venous thromboembolism. METHODS: From 26 February to 20 April 2020, D-dimer concentration at admission and outcomes (in-hospital mortality and venous thromboembolism) of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in medical wards were retrospectively analysed in a multicenter study in 24 French hospitals. RESULTS: Among 2878 patients enrolled in the study, 1154 (40.1%) patients had D-dimer measurement at admission. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified a D-dimer concentration>1128ng/mL as the best cut-off value for in-hospital mortality (area under the curve 64.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60-69), with a sensitivity of 71.1% (95% CI 62-78) and a specificity of 55.6% (95% CI 52-58), which did not differ in the subgroup of patients with venous thromboembolism during hospitalisation. Among 545 (47.2%) patients with D-dimer concentration>1128ng/mL at admission, 86 (15.8%) deaths occurred during hospitalisation. After adjustment, in Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, D-dimer concentration>1128ng/mL at admission was also associated with a worse prognosis, with an odds ratio of 3.07 (95% CI 2.05-4.69; P<0.001) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.11 (95% CI 1.31-3.4; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer concentration>1128ng/mL is a relevant predictive factor for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in a medical ward, regardless of the occurrence of venous thromboembolism during hospitalisation.

Anticoagulation Before Hospitalization Is a Potential Protective Factor for COVID-19: Insight From a French Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease associated with thrombotic outcomes with coagulation and endothelial disorders. Based on that, several anticoagulation guidelines have been proposed. We aimed to determine whether anticoagulation therapy modifies the risk of developing severe COVID-19. Methods and Results Patients with COVID-19 initially admitted in medical wards of 24 French hospitals were included prospectively from February 26 to April 20, 2020. We used a Poisson regression model, Cox proportional hazard model, and matched propensity score to assess the effect of anticoagulation on outcomes (intensive care unit admission or in-hospital mortality). The study enrolled 2878 patients with COVID-19, among whom 382 (13.2%) were treated with oral anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization. After adjustment, anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.88). Analyses performed using propensity score matching confirmed that anticoagulation therapy before hospitalization was associated with a better prognosis, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29-0.63) for intensive care unit admission and adjusted hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61-0.98) for composite criteria intensive care unit admission or death. In contrast, therapeutic or prophylactic low- or high-dose anticoagulation started during hospitalization were not associated with any of the outcomes. Conclusions Anticoagulation therapy used before hospitalization in medical wards was associated with a better prognosis in contrast with anticoagulation initiated during hospitalization. Anticoagulation therapy introduced in early disease could better prevent COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and endotheliopathy, and lead to a better prognosis.

Association of diabetes and outcomes in patients with COVID-19: Propensity score-matched analyses from a French retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with and without diabetes admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre cohort study comprised 24 tertiary medical centres in France, and included 2851 patients (675 with diabetes) hospitalized for COVID-19 between 26 February and 20 April 2020. A propensity score-matching (PSM) method (1:1 matching including patients' characteristics, medical history, vital statistics and laboratory results) was used to compare patients with and without diabetes (n = 603 per group). The primary outcome was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or in-hospital death. RESULTS: After PSM, all baseline characteristics were well balanced between those with and without diabetes: mean age was 71.2 years; 61.8% were male; and mean BMI was 29 kg/m2. A history of cardiovascular, chronic kidney and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases were found in 32.8%, 22.1% and 6.4% of participants, respectively. The risk of experiencing the primary outcome was similar in patients with or without diabetes [hazard ratio (HR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-1.41; P = 0.14], and was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.69) for in-hospital death, 1.26 (95% CI: 0.9-1.72) for death with no transfer to an ICU and 1.14 (95% CI: 0.88-1.47) with transfer to an ICU. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, diabetes was not significantly associated with a higher risk of severe outcomes after PSM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04344327.

Stent-assisted balloon dilatation of chronic aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of complicated chronic aortic dissection remains controversial. We previously reported encouraging early results with the stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination of aortic dissection (STABILISE) technique for treating complicated acute aortic dissections. However, to date there have been no specific reports on the treatment of complicated chronic aortic dissections with this technique. The aim of this study was to assess the results of the STABILISE technique to treat complicated chronic aortic dissection. METHODS: A single-center prospectively maintained database enrolled all patients hospitalized for aortic dissection at our institution. Inclusion criteria for the STABILISE procedure at the chronic stage of dissection (>3 months) were postdissection aneurysm with a diameter >55 mm or rapid aortic diameter growth >5 mm/6 months. We reviewed all patients treated for complicated chronic aortic dissection with the STABILISE technique. Patients were monitored at 3, 6, and 12 months and annually thereafter with clinical, imaging, and laboratory studies. Outcome analyses included survival, rupture, spinal cord ischemia, endoleak, morbidity (cardiac, renal, or pulmonary), reinterventions, false lumen patency, and aneurysm growth. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and December 2018, 17 patients underwent a STABILISE procedure for complicated chronic aortic dissection of the descending aorta. Fifteen patients were treated for remaining chronic distal thoracoabdominal aortic dissection after acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection repair, and 2 patients were treated for chronic type B aortic dissection. The median patient age was 61 years (range, 46-67 years). The median interval between the onset of acute symptoms and the procedure was 9 months (range, 3-67 months). Indications for the STABILISE procedure were a rapidly growing dissected aortic diameter >5 mm/6 months in 13 patients and aneurysmal evolution of the descending thoracic aorta >55 mm in 4 patients. There were no cases of in-hospital death, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, ischemic colitis, or renal failure necessitating dialysis. The median duration of follow-up was 17 months (range, 5-28.5 months). At the last computed tomography scan, 15 patients (88%) had complete false lumen thrombosis of the treated thoracoabdominal aorta down to the renal arteries. None of the patients had aortic growth at treated thoracoabdominal aorta level. One patient developed a proximal type 1 endoleak and required reintervention. Regarding the untreated aortoiliac level below the renal arteries, 11 patients had persistent false lumen patency, and 1 patient developed a common iliac artery aneurysm. All the other patients had stable infrarenal aortoiliac diameters. No late deaths were reported during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The STABILISE technique is a safe and effective means of performing immediate, complete aortic remodeling of the thoracoabdominal aorta in patients with complicated chronic aortic dissection, stabilizing the diameter of the dissected aorta.

Covered Stents as a First-Line Treatment for Vascular Access Complications During Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Eight-Year Experience From a Single Center.

We report 8-year experience with vascular access complications (VACs) after percutaneous transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). From January 2010 to January 2018, patients with iliofemoral VAC treated by an intervention following percutaneous transfemoral TAVI were included. Major VAC was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 classification. As first-line strategy, VACs were treated using covered nitinol stents (CS). Among 795 percutaneous transfemoral TAVI, 74 (9.3%) patients (female, 57%; 82 ± 8 years) with VAC treated by CS and/or open repair were included in this study: 59 CS cases and 15 open repair cases. Two CS patients were converted to open repair. Technical success for stent implantation was 97%. The main VAC was a persistent bleeding related to percutaneous closure device failure (72%). Thirty-day mortality in the study cohort was 5.4% (4/74), including 1 VAC-related death. One patient had postoperative lower limb ischemia successfully treated by open repair. No amputation, new-onset claudication or in-stent occlusion was recorded. Endovascular intervention using self-expandable nitinol covered stent is safe and effective as a first-line strategy for the treatment of VAC in percutaneous transfemoral TAVI. However, open repair is needed in case of unfeasibility or failure of endovascular therapy.

COVID-19 severity in kidney transplant recipients is similar to nontransplant patients with similar comorbidities.

Higher rates of severe COVID-19 have been reported in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared to nontransplant patients. We aimed to determine if poorer outcomes were specifically related to chronic immunosuppression or underlying comorbidities. We used a 1:1 propensity score-matching method to compare survival and severe disease-free survival (defined as death and/or need for intensive care unit [ICU]) incidence in hospitalized KTRs and nontransplant control patients between February 26 and May 22, 2020. Patients were matched for risk factors of severe COVID-19: age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, preexisting cardiopathy, chronic lung disease, and basal renal function. We included 100 KTRs (median age [interquartile range (IQR)]) 64.7 years (55.3-73.1) in three French transplant centers. After a median follow-up of 13 days (7-30), transfer to ICU was required for 34 patients (34%) and death occurred in 26 patients (26%). Overall, 43 patients (43%) developed a severe disease during a median follow-up of 8.5 days (2-14). Propensity score matching to a large French cohort of 2017 patients hospitalized in 24 centers, revealed that survival was similar between KTRs and matched nontransplant patients with respective 30-day survival of 62.9% and 71% (p = .38) and severe disease-free 30-day survival of 50.6% and 47.5% (p = .91). These findings suggest that severity of COVID-19 in KTRs is related to their associated comorbidities and not to chronic immunosuppression.