Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Atherosclerosis ; 328: 136-143, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33883086

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential impact of coronary atherosclerosis, as detected by coronary artery calcium, on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients remains unsettled. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of clinical and subclinical coronary artery disease (CAD), as assessed by coronary artery calcium score (CAC), in a large, unselected population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients undergoing non-gated chest computed tomography (CT) for clinical practice. METHODS: SARS-CoV 2 positive patients from the multicenter (16 Italian hospitals), retrospective observational SCORE COVID-19 (calcium score for COVID-19 Risk Evaluation) registry were stratified in three groups: (a) "clinical CAD" (prior revascularization history), (b) "subclinical CAD" (CAC >0), (c) "No CAD" (CAC = 0). Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality and the secondary endpoint was a composite of myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident (MI/CVA). RESULTS: Amongst 1625 patients (male 67.2%, median age 69 [interquartile range 58-77] years), 31%, 57.8% and 11.1% had no, subclinical and clinical CAD, respectively. Increasing rates of in-hospital mortality (11.3% vs. 27.3% vs. 39.8%, p < 0.001) and MI/CVA events (2.3% vs. 3.8% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.001) were observed for patients with no CAD vs. subclinical CAD vs clinical CAD, respectively. The association with in-hospital mortality was independent of in-study outcome predictors (age, peripheral artery disease, active cancer, hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, LDH, aerated lung volume): subclinical CAD vs. No CAD: adjusted hazard ratio (adj-HR) 2.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-7.17, p=0.025); clinical CAD vs. No CAD: adj-HR 3.74 (95% CI 1.21-11.60, p=0.022). Among patients with subclinical CAD, increasing CAC burden was associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality (20.5% vs. 27.9% vs. 38.7% for patients with CAC score thresholds≤100, 101-400 and > 400, respectively, p < 0.001). The adj-HR per 50 points increase in CAC score 1.007 (95%CI 1.001-1.013, p=0.016). Cardiovascular risk factors were not independent predictors of in-hospital mortality when CAD presence and extent were taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and extent of CAD are associated with in-hospital mortality and MI/CVA among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease and they appear to be a better prognostic gauge as compared to a clinical cardiovascular risk assessment.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Idoso , Cálcio , Angiografia Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico por imagem , Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Card Surg ; 30(5): 400-4, 2015 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25756936

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with a small aortic annulus, that is ≤ 23 mm, constitute a challenge for the surgeon, because they are at high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Stentless valves provide better hemodynamic performance at rest and during exercise than stented valves, and are advocated in this group of patients. A new-generation stented valve, the Trifecta (St. Jude), has recently become available with improved hemodynamics. The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic performance of Freestyle (Medtronic) and Trifecta at rest and during exercise in patients with a small aortic annulus. METHODS: From September 2012 to September 2014, 22 patients with a native aortic annulus ≤ 23 mm underwent ergometric stress testing one year after aortic valve replacement with either a Trifecta (12 patients) or a Freestyle (10 patients) bioprosthesis as part of a randomized study. RESULTS: The mean gradient at rest was 6.0 ± 2.3 mmHg for Trifecta and 4.3 ± 3.5 for Freestyle (p = 0.213). The mean gradient at peak of exercise was 9.7 ± 3.4 mmHg for Trifecta and 7.4 ± 5 mmHg for Freestyle (p = 0.243). No significant differences were found between the two prostheses regarding other hemodynamic parameters: effective orifice area, velocity index, and performance indexes. CONCLUSION: Both the stented Trifecta and stentless Freestyle prostheses provide excellent hemodynamic results during physical stress in patients with a small aortic annulus. Our study confirms that Trifecta implantation results in low gradients at rest and during exercise and that the performance of Trifecta is similar to that of a stentless valve.


Assuntos
Valva Aórtica/fisiologia , Exercício Físico/fisiologia , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/instrumentação , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Hemodinâmica , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Teste de Esforço , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Desenho de Prótese
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA