ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Few data are available on long-term drug therapy and its potential prognostic impact after Takotsubo syndrome (TTS). Aim of the study is to evaluate clinical characteristics and long-term outcome of TTS patients on Renin Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi). METHODS: TTS patients were enrolled in the international multicenter GEIST (GErman Italian Spanish Takotsubo) registry. Median follow-up was 31 (Interquartile range 12-56) months. Comparison of RASi treated vs. untreated patients was performed within the overall population and after 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, comorbidities, type of trigger and in-hospital complications. REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04361994, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04361994 RESULTS: Of the 2453 TTS patients discharged alive, 1683 (68%) received RASi therapy. Patients with RASi were older (age 71 ± 11 vs 69 ± 13 years, P = .01), with higher prevalence of hypertension (74% vs 53%, P < .01) and diabetes (19% v s15%, P = .01), higher admission left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (41 ± 11% vs 39 ± 12%, P < .01) and lower rates of in-hospital complications (18.9% vs 29.6%, P < .01). At multivariable analysis, RASi therapy at discharge was independently associated with lower mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.87, P < .01). Survival analysis showed that at long term, patients treated with RASi had lower mortality rates in the overall cohort (log-rank P = .001). However, this benefit was not found among patients treated with RASi in the matched cohort (log-rank P = .168). Potential survival benefit of RASi were present, both in the overall and matched cohort, in 2 subgroups: patients with admission LVEF ≤ 40% (HR 0.54 95% CI 0.38-0.78, P = .001; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.95, P = .030) and diabetes (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.73, P = .002; HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.82, P = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term therapy with RASi after a TTS episode was not associated with lower mortality rates at propensity score analysis. However, potential survival benefit can be found among patients with admission LVEF ≤ 40% or diabetes.
ABSTRACT
Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) in the pediatric population is an infrequent but relevant cause of morbidity and mortality, with limited studies addressing its clinical course and prognosis. We aimed to analyze the clinical features and prognosis of pediatric TTS in a nation-wide multicenter registry and considering the published literature. We included a total of 54 patients from 4 different hospitals in Spain, as well as pediatric TTS patients from the published literature. Comparisons between groups were performed in order to assess for statistically and clinically relevant prognostic differences between pediatric and adult population features. Patients with pediatric TTS are more commonly male and exhibit a higher prevalence of physical triggers. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower in the pediatric population (30.5 + 10.4 vs 36.9 + 16.9, p < 0.05), resulting in more than fivefold rates of cardiogenic shock on admission compared to the general adult TTS population (Killip IV 74.1% vs 10.5%, p < 0.001) with similar rates of death and recurrence between groups. TTS in the pediatric population presents a distinctive clinical profile, with higher prevalence of atypical symptoms and physical triggers, as well as higher rates of cardiogenic shock on admission and similar mortality and recurrence rates than those of the adult population. This study provides valuable insights into understanding pediatric TTS and underscores the necessity for further research in this age group.
Subject(s)
Registries , Stroke Volume , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy , Humans , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/epidemiology , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/physiopathology , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/diagnosis , Child , Spain/epidemiology , Prognosis , Stroke Volume/physiology , Male , Female , Adolescent , Ventricular Function, Left/physiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/epidemiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/mortality , Shock, Cardiogenic/physiopathology , Prevalence , Child, PreschoolABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend extending the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and a high risk of ischaemia and low risk of bleeding. No data exist about the implementation of this strategy in older adults from routine clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a Spanish multicentre, retrospective, observational registry-based study that included patients with ACS but no thrombotic or bleeding events during the first year of DAPT after discharge and no indication for oral anticoagulants. High bleeding risk was defined according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. We assessed the proportion of cases of extended DAPT among patients 65 ≥ years that went beyond 1 year after hospitalisation for ACS and the variables associated with the strategy. RESULTS: We found that 48.1% (928/1,928) of patients were aged ≥ 65 years. DAPT was continued beyond 1 year in 32.1% (298/928) of patients ≥ 65; which was a similar proportion as with their younger counterparts. There was no significant correlation between a high bleeding risk and DAPT duration. Contrastingly, there was a strong correlation between the extent of coronary disease and DAPT duration (p < 0.001). Other variables associated with extended DAPT were a higher left ventricle ejection fraction, a history of heart failure and a prior stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: There was no correlation between age and extended use of DAPT beyond 1 year in older patients with ACS. DAPT was extended in about one-third of patients ≥ 65 years. The severity of the coronary disease, prior heart failure, left ventricle ejection fraction and prior stent thrombosis all correlated with extended DAPT.
ABSTRACT
Although numerous patient-specific co-factors have been shown to be associated with worse outcomes in COVID-19, the prognostic value of thalassaemic syndromes in COVID-19 patients remains poorly understood. We studied the outcomes of 137 COVID-19 patients with a history of transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (TDT) and transfusion independent thalassaemia (TIT) extracted from a large international cohort and compared them with the outcomes from a matched cohort of COVID-19 patients with no history of thalassaemia. The mean age of thalassaemia patients included in our study was 41 ± 16 years (48.9% male). Almost 81% of these patients suffered from TDT requiring blood transfusions on a regular basis. 38.7% of patients were blood group O. Cardiac iron overload was documented in 6.8% of study patients, whereas liver iron overload was documented in 35% of study patients. 40% of thalassaemia patients had a history of splenectomy. 27.7% of study patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection. Amongst the hospitalized patients, one patient died (0.7%) and one patient required intubation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was required in almost 5% of study patients. After adjustment for age-, sex- and other known risk factors (cardiac disease, kidney disease and pulmonary disease), the rate of in-hospital complications (supplemental oxygen use, admission to an intensive care unit for CPAP therapy or intubation) and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the thalassaemia group compared to the matched cohort with no history of thalassaemia. Amongst thalassaemia patients in general, the TIT group exhibited a higher rate of hospitalization compared to the TDT group (p = 0.001). In addition, the rate of complications such as acute kidney injury and need for supplemental oxygen was significantly higher in the TIT group compared to the TDT group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, age and history of heart or kidney disease were all found to be independent risk factors for increased in-hospital, all-cause mortality, whereas the presence of thalassaemia (either TDT or TIT) was found to be independently associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The presence of thalassaemia in COVID-19 patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital, all-cause mortality and few in-hospital complications in our study. The pathophysiology of this is unclear and needs to be studied in vitro and in animal models.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Iron Overload , Thalassemia , COVID-19/complications , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Iron Overload/etiology , Male , Oxygen , Registries , Thalassemia/complications , Thalassemia/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the outcomes of deferred coronary revascularization in patients with non-significant in-stent restenosis (ISR) by physiological assessment. BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology and natural history of ISR is markedly different from de-novo stenoses. There is a paucity of data on the safety of deferral of revascularization of ISR using physiological assessment. METHODS: In this single centre study, using a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with ISR and de-novo disease deferred based on intracoronary physiology. Matching was on a 1:2 basis of ISR to de-novo stenosis. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) a composite of all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction at 36 months. RESULTS: Matched cohorts of 56 ISR and 112 de-novo stenoses were analyzed. The median percentage stenosis was 50% in both groups (p = 0.403). Deferral was based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). The mean FFR was 0.86 across both groups (p = 0.942). At 36-months, freedom from MACE was similar between groups; 86.2% versus 92.8% log rank p=0.180 for ISR and de-novo lesions, respectively. Neither were there differences in the individual components of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of coronary revascularization in patients with ISR based on its functional impact is associated to similar long-term safety as in de-novo coronary stenosis.
Subject(s)
Coronary Restenosis , Coronary Stenosis , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial , Constriction, Pathologic/complications , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , Coronary Restenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Restenosis/etiology , Coronary Restenosis/therapy , Coronary Stenosis/complications , Coronary Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Stenosis/therapy , Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial/physiology , Humans , Myocardial Revascularization/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The role of circulating progenitor cells (CPC) in vascular repair following everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation is largely unknown. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between temporal variation in CPC levels following EES implantation and the degree of peri-procedural vascular damage, and stent healing, as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT).MethodsâandâResults: CPC populations (CD133+/KDR+/CD45low) included patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing stent implantation, and were evaluated using a flow cytometry technique both at baseline and at 1 week. OCT evaluation was performed immediately post-implantation to quantify the stent-related injury and at a 9-month follow up to assess the mid-term vascular response. Twenty patients (mean age 66±9 years; 80% male) with EES-treated stenoses (n=24) were included in this study. Vascular injury score was associated with the 1-week increase of CD133+/KDR+/CD45low (ß 0.28 [95% CI 0.15; 0.41]; P<0.001) and with maximum neointimal thickness at a 9-month follow up (ß 0.008 [95% CI 0.0004; 0.002]; P=0.04). Inverse relationships between numbers of uncoated and apposed struts for the 9-month and the 1-week delta values of CD133+/KDR+/CD45low (ß -12.53 [95% CI -22.17; -2.90]; P=0.011), were also found. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of vessel wall injury influences early changes in the levels of CPC and had an effect on mid-term vascular healing after EES implantation. Early CPC mobilisation was associated with mid-term strut coverage.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Drug-Eluting Stents , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Vascular System Injuries , Aged , Coronary Vessels , Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects , Everolimus , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neointima , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Sirolimus , Tomography, Optical Coherence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Background: Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results: 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59-2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92-4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Thromboembolism , Administration, Oral , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Prognosis , Registries , Thromboembolism/prevention & controlABSTRACT
The recently published guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases presented in August 2021 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology congress recommend the use of the SCORE2 risk index instead of the classic SCORE risk index to calculate the cardiovascular risk (specifically, ten-year fatal and nonfatal risk) in a healthy population under the age of 70 years, with a level of evidence IB. This new risk index was developed with the collaboration of about 200 investigators, including 45 cohorts in 13 countries with 700,000 participants, and covers the known risk factors for heart and circulatory diseases such as age, sex, lipid levels, blood pressure, and smoking. In addition, it divides the countries into four groups of risk and uses a competing risk model, adjusting the risk for the probability of having another event, which enables better estimation of the risk of fatal and nonfatal events in a younger population (40-69 years).
Subject(s)
Cardiology , Cardiovascular Diseases , Aged , Algorithms , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. METHODS: HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. RESULTS: We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p<0.05 for all). However, we did not find differences regarding the hospital use of RASi and the development of heart failure. CONCLUSION: RASi historic use, at admission, is not related to an adjusted worse prognosis in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, although it points out a high-risk population. In this setting, the in-hospital prescription of RASi is associated with improved survival and fewer short-term complications.
Subject(s)
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Female , Heart Failure/diagnosis , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Failure/etiology , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Prognosis , Registries , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. DESIGN: Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). SETTING: Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p < 0.01) and nonsignificant higher risk of bleeding (3.4% vs 2.7%; p = 0.3). Anticoagulation therapy was associated with lower mortality rates in patients treated with invasive ventilation (53% vs 64%; p = 0.05) without increased rates of bleeding (9% vs 8%; p = 0.88) but not in those with noninvasive ventilation (35% vs 38%; p = 0.40). At multivariate Cox' analysis mortality relative risk with anticoagulation was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in patients admitted with respiratory failure, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.67) in those requiring invasive ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51-1.01) in noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Registries , COVID-19/mortality , Case-Control Studies , Correlation of Data , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Risk , Survival Rate , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases. Some of these patients are under oral anticoagulation (OAC) at admission, but to date, there are no data on the clinical profile, prognosis and risk factors of such patients during hospitalization for COVID-19. DESIGN: Subanalysis of the international 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients with prior OAC at hospital admission for COVID-19 were suitable for the study. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: From 1002 patients included, 110 (60.9% male, median age of 81.5 [IQR 75-87] years, median Short-Form Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] of 1 [IQR 1-3]) were on OAC at admission, mainly for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. After propensity score matching, 67.9% of these patients died during hospitalization, which translated into a significantly higher mortality risk compared to patients without prior OAC (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.08-2.16). After multivariate Cox regression analysis, respiratory insufficiency during hospitalization (HR 6.02, 95% CI 2.18-16.62), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) during hospitalization (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.34-3.91) and the Short-Form CCI (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49) were the main risk factors for mortality in patients on prior OAC. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients without prior OAC, COVID-19 patients on OAC therapy at hospital admission showed lower survival and higher mortality risk. In these patients on OAC therapy, the prevalence of several comorbidities is high. Respiratory insufficiency and SIRS during hospitalization, as well as higher comorbidity, pointed out those anticoagulated patients with increased mortality risk.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Atrial Fibrillation/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Female , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Prognosis , Propensity Score , Proportional Hazards Models , Renal Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/epidemiology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A systematic analysis of concomitant arterial hypertension in COVID-19 patients and the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been studied in a large multicentre cohort yet. We conducted a subanalysis from the international HOPE Registry (https://hopeprojectmd.com, NCT04334291) comparing COVID-19 in presence and absence of arterial hypertension. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Out of 5837 COVID-19 patients, 2850 (48.8%) patients had the diagnosis arterial hypertension. 1978/2813 (70.3%) patients were already treated with ACEI or ARBs. The clinical outcome of the present subanalysis included all-cause mortality over 40 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with arterial hypertension suffered significantly more from different complications including respiratory insufficiency (60.8% vs 39.5%), heart failure (9.9% vs 3.1%), acute kidney injury (25.3% vs 7.3%), pneumonia (90.6% vs 86%), sepsis (14.7% vs 7.5%), and bleeding events (3.6% vs 1.6%). The mortality rate was 29.6% in patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and 11.3% without arterial hypertension (P < .001). Invasive and non-invasive respiratory supports were significantly more required in presence of arterial hypertension as compared without it. In the multivariate cox regression analysis, while age≥65, benzodiazepine, antidepressant at admission, elevated LDH or creatinine, respiratory insufficiency and sepsis might be a positive independent predictors of mortality, antiviral drugs, interferon treatment, ACEI or ARBs at discharge or oral anticoagulation at discharge might be an independent negative predictor of the mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and in-hospital complications might be increased in COVID-19 patients with a concomitant history of arterial hypertension. The history of ACEI or ARBs treatments does not seem to impact the outcome of these patients.
Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Sepsis/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/therapy , Creatinine/metabolism , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Italy/epidemiology , L-Lactate Dehydrogenase/metabolism , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation , Proportional Hazards Models , Registries , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the Usefulness of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in patients with coronary artery aneurysm (CAA). BACKGROUND: Data on the most adequate antithrombotic CAA management is lacking. METHODS: Patients included in CAAR (Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry, Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02563626) were selected. Patients were divided in OAT and non-OAT groups, according to anticoagulation status at discharge and 2:1 propensity score matching with replacement was performed. The primary endpoint of the analysis was a composite and mutual exclusive endpoint of myocardial infarction, unstable angina (UA), and aneurysm thrombosis (coronary ischemic endpoint). Net adverse clinical events, major adverse cardiovascular events, their single components, cardiovascular death, re-hospitalizations for heart failure, stroke, aneurysm thrombosis, and bleeding were the secondary ones. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirty-one patients were discharged without OAT and 211 with OAT. In the propensity-matched sample (390 patients in the non-OAT group, 195 patients in the OAT group), after 3 years of median follow-up (interquartile range 1-6 years), the rate of the primary endpoint (coronary ischemic endpoint) was significantly less in the OAT group as compared to non-OAT group (8.7 vs. 17.2%, respectively; p = .01), driven by a significant reduction in UA (4.6 vs. 10%, p < .01) and aneurysm thrombosis (0 vs. 3.1%, p = .03), along with a non-significant reduction in MI (4.1 vs. 7.7%, p = .13). A non-significant increase in bleedings, mainly BARC type 1 (55%), was found in the OAT-group (10.3% in the non-OAT vs. 6.2% in the OAT group, p = .08). CONCLUSION: OAT decreases the composite endpoint of UA, myocardial infarction, and aneurysm thrombosis in patients with CAA, despite a non-significant higher risk of bleeding.
Subject(s)
Coronary Aneurysm , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Coronary Aneurysm/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Registries , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS: Several novel low-dose fluoroscopic systems (LDS) developed recently, but real practice information of the net benefit for the patient and professionals is scarce. We evaluated separately patient and operator radiation exposure during percutaneous interventions of chronic total occlusions (CTO). METHODS: A total of 116 consecutive CTOs were analyzed (60 in LDS and 56 in standard-dose fluoroscopic system [SDS]). Digital dosimetry of patient and occupational (operator and scatter dose) exposure was prospectively recorded. RESULTS: Biometrics, demographics, CTO variables, and operators were distributed evenly. Patient radiation exposure was effectively decreased in LDS (dose area product [DAP] by 36%, Air Kerma [AK] by 47%). However, occupational data showed no statistical differences between LDS and SDS. The LDS uses less radiation amount but with higher energy (due to additional filtration) compared to SDS, therefore increasing the scatter dose. When comparing the C-arm scatter dose to the DAP we found higher scatter dose with the LDS (0.0139 mSv/gray (Gy)*cm2 vs. 0.0082 mSv/Gy*cm2, p < .001). This was confirmed in a larger dataset comprising 5,221 coronary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: LDS was safer for patients reducing DAP and AK compared to SDS. However, occupational doses were not lower and scatter dose higher. Radiological protection measures must be kept maximized even in LDS.
Subject(s)
Coronary Occlusion , Occupational Exposure , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Radiation Exposure , Coronary Angiography , Fluoroscopy/adverse effects , Humans , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Radiation Dosage , Radiation Exposure/adverse effects , Radiation Exposure/prevention & control , Radiography, Interventional/adverse effects , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The PARIS risk score (PARIS-rs) and percutaneous coronary intervention complexity (PCI-c) predict clinical and procedural residual ischemic risk following PCI. Their accuracy in patients undergoing unprotected left main (ULM) or bifurcation PCI has not been assessed. METHODS: The predictive performances of the PARIS-rs (categorized as low, intermediate, and high) and PCI-c (according to guideline-endorsed criteria) were evaluated in 3,002 patients undergoing ULM/bifurcation PCI with very thin strut stents. RESULTS: After 16 (12-22) months, increasing PARIS-rs (8.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 27.4%, p < .001) and PCI-c (15.2% vs. 11%, p = .025) were associated with higher rates of major adverse cardiac events ([MACE], a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization), driven by MI/death for PARIS-rs and target lesion revascularization/stent thrombosis for PCI-c (area under the curves for MACE: PARIS-rs 0.60 vs. PCI-c 0.52, p-for-difference < .001). PCI-c accuracy for MACE was higher in low-clinical-risk patients; while PARIS-rs was more accurate in low-procedural-risk patients. ≥12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was associated with a lower MACE rate in high PARIS-rs patients, (adjusted-hazard ratio 0.42 [95% CI: 0.22-0.83], p = .012), with no benefit in low to intermediate PARIS-rs patients. No incremental benefit with longer DAPT was observed in complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of ULM/bifurcation PCI, the residual ischemic risk is better predicted by a clinical risk estimator than by PCI complexity, which rather appears to reflect stent/procedure-related events. Careful procedural risk estimation is warranted in patients at low clinical risk, where PCI complexity may substantially contribute to the overall residual ischemic risk.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Drug-Eluting Stents , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Humans , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Stents , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19. These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291). There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p = 0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p = 0.484), liver (p = 0.1) or immune disease (p = 0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (< 0.0001), but no with ICU (0.165) or mechanical ventilation (0.292). On univariable logistic regression, OGD was found to be inversely related to death in COVID-19 patients. The odds ratio was 0.26 (0.15-0.44) (p < 0.001) and Z was - 5.05. The presence of anosmia is fundamental in the diagnosis of SARS.CoV-2 infection, but also could be important in classifying patients and in therapeutic decisions. Even more knowing that it is an early symptom of the disease. Knowing that other situations as being Afro-American or Latino-American, hypertension, renal insufficiency, or increase of C-reactive protein (CRP) imply a worse prognosis we can make a clinical score to estimate the vital prognosis of the patient. The exact pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 that causes olfactory and gustative disorders remains unknown but seems related to the prognosis. This point is fundamental, insomuch as could be a plausible way to find a treatment.
Subject(s)
Anosmia/etiology , COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Taste Disorders/etiology , Aged , Anosmia/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Prognosis , Registries , Risk Factors , Taste Disorders/epidemiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Higher risk of bleeding with ticagrelor over clopidogrel in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been suggested. We assessed the incidence of major bleedings (MB), reinfarction (re-MI), and all-cause death to evaluate safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in such population. METHODS: Real-world registries RENAMI and BleeMACS were merged. The pooled cohort was divided into two groups, clopidogrel versus ticagrelor. Statistical analysis considered patients <75 versus ≥75 years old. Endpoints were BARC 3-5 MB, re-MI, and all-cause death at 1-year follow-up. The study included 16,653 patients (13,153 < 75 and 3500 ≥ 75 years). Ticagrelor was underused in elderly patients (16.3% versus 20.8%, P < 0.001). Using propensity score matching (PSM), two treatment groups of 1566 patients were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Ticagrelor was able to prevent re-MI (hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.6; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9; P = 0.026) irrespective of age. In patients ≥75 years, ticagrelor reduced all-cause death (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = 0.012) and re-MI (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1, P = 0.072). Moreover, even with the limit of the low number of events, ticagrelor did not significantly increase the incidence of MB (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.70-3.0; P = 0.257). At multiple Cox regression, age (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001) resulted an independent risk factor for bleeding. CONCLUSION: In our study, reflecting the results from two large retrospective, real-world registries, Ticagrelor did not significantly increase MB compared with clopidogrel in elderly patients with ACS treated with PCI, while significantly improving 1-year survival. Further studies on elderly patients are suggested.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Clopidogrel/therapeutic use , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/statistics & numerical data , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Ticagrelor/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Clopidogrel/administration & dosage , Clopidogrel/adverse effects , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Propensity Score , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Ticagrelor/administration & dosage , Ticagrelor/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. METHODS: post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, 'real-world' HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65-74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71-83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission <92% (OR 5.85), severe lymphopenia (<500/mm3) (OR 3.36) and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score) >1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation <92%, severe lymphopenia and qSOFA scale >1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , International Cooperation , Male , Mortality , Multimorbidity , Prognosis , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purificationABSTRACT
Effective management of cardiogenic shock (CS) is hampered by a lack of evidence-based information. This is a high-mortality condition, without clear, evidence-based guidelines for perioperative management, specifically-a lack of target endpoints for treatment (e.g.: mean arterial pressure or oxygenation), utility of regional care systems or the benefits of palliative care. The Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recently published a position statement that aimed to offer contemporary guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS. Herein, we review this complex clinical topic and review the ACCA statement on AMI associated with CS, with a focus on relevance to perioperative management.
Subject(s)
Cardiology , Myocardial Infarction , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Shock, Cardiogenic/diagnosis , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Shock, Cardiogenic/therapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The heart team (HT) approach plays a key role in selecting the optimal treatment strategy for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, little is known about the HT decision process and its impact on outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with the HT decision and evaluate clinical outcomes according to the treatment choice. METHODS: The study included a total of 286 consecutive patients with AS referred for discussion in the weekly HT meeting in a cardiovascular institute over 2 years. Patients were stratified according to the selected therapeutic approach: medical treatment (MT), surgical (SAVR), or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement. Baseline characteristics involved in making a therapeutic choice were identified and a decision-making tree was built using classification and regression tree methodology. RESULTS: Based on HT discussion, 53 patients were assigned to SAVR, 210 to TAVR, and 23 to MT. Older patients (≥88 years old) were mainly assigned to TAVR or MT according to the logistic EuroSCORE (Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis
, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
, Aged, 80 and over
, Aortic Valve/surgery
, Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery
, Humans
, Risk Factors
, Treatment Outcome