Effect of Discontinuing vs Continuing Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Days Alive and Out of the Hospital in Patients Admitted With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

Catheter ablation of the parahisian accessory pathways from the aortic cusps-Experience of 20 cases-Improving the mapping strategy for better results.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of the parahisian accessory pathways (PHAP) has been established as the definitive therapy for this type of arrhythmia. However, the PHAP proximity to the normal atrioventricular conduction system makes the procedure technically challenging. Here, we have reported a case series of 20 patients with PHAP who underwent aortic access ablation to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this approach in the PHAP ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ablation through the aortic cusps was the successful approach in 13 of 20 (65%) of the cases. In 11 patients, the aortic approach was the initial strategy for ablation, and the accessory pathway was eliminated in seven (63.6%) of them. The aortic approach followed a failed right-sided attempt in nine patients. In six (66.7%) patients, the ablation was successful with the aortic approach. The only independent predictor for the successful ablation with each approach was the earliest ventricular activation before delta wave (predelta time) and a right-sided earliest ventricular activation of more than 23 ms had high sensitivity and specificity for right-sided success. Systematically using the two strategies (right and left approaches), the ablation of the PHAP was successful in 18 (90%) patients. CONCLUSION: The aortic approach seems to be a safe and effective strategy for the ablation of PHAP. It can be used when the right-sided approach fails or even considered as an initial strategy when the predelta time is less than 23 ms in the right septal region. When combining the right- and left-sided approaches, the success rate is high. We believe that the retrograde aortic approach remains a key tool for this challenging ablation.