Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. CONCLUSION: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan / Estudo randomizado prospectivo e controlado de avaliação dos efeitos de uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (estudo STAMINA): protocolo e plano de análise estatística

ABSTRACT Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

RESUMO Contexto: Em estudos observacionais sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, sugeriu-se que a driving pressure é o principal fator de lesão pulmonar induzida por ventilador e de mortalidade. Não está claro se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure pode melhorar os desfechos clínicos. Objetivo: Descrever o protocolo e o plano de análise estatística que serão usados para testar se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure envolvendo a titulação da pressão positiva expiratória final de acordo com a melhor complacência respiratória e a redução do volume corrente é superior a uma estratégia padrão envolvendo o uso da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSNet, em termos de aumento do número de dias sem ventilador em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade. Métodos: O estudo STAMINA (ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA) é randomizado, multicêntrico e aberto e compara uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure com a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Esperamos recrutar 500 pacientes de 20 unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras e duas colombianas. Eles serão randomizados para um grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure ou para um grupo de estratégia padrão usando a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet. No grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure, a pressão positiva expiratória final será titulada de acordo com a melhor complacência do sistema respiratório. Desfechos: O desfecho primário é o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias. Os desfechos secundários são a mortalidade hospitalar e na unidade de terapia intensiva e a necessidade de terapias de resgate, como suporte de vida extracorpóreo, manobras de recrutamento e óxido nítrico inalado. Conclusão: O STAMINA foi projetado para fornecer evidências sobre se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure é superior à estratégia da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet para aumentar o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave. Aqui, descrevemos a justificativa, o desenho e o status do estudo.

In-Hospital Management and Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Adherence in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Primary Results of the First Brazilian Registry of Heart Failure (BREATHE).

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF), a common cause of hospitalization, is associated with poor short-term clinical outcomes. Little is known about the long-term prognoses of patients with HF in Latin America. METHODS: BREATHE was the first nationwide prospective observational study in Brazil that included patients hospitalized due to acute heart failure (HF). Patients were included during 2 time periods: February 2011-December 2012 and June 2016-July 2018 SUGGESTION FOR REPHRASING: In-hospital management, 12-month clinical outcomes and adherence to evidence-based therapies were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3013 patients were enrolled at 71 centers in Brazil. At hospital admission, 83.8% had clear signs of pulmonary congestion. The main cause of decompensation was poor adherence to HF medications (27.8%). Among patients with reduced ejection fraction, concomitant use of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and spironolactone decreased from 44.5% at hospital discharge to 35.2% at 3 months. The cumulative incidence of mortality at 12 months was 27.7%, with 24.3% readmission at 90 days and 44.4% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national prospective registry of patients hospitalized with acute HF, rates of mortality and readmission were higher than those reported globally. Poor adherence to evidence-based therapies was common at hospital discharge and at 12 months of follow-up.

In-Hospital Management and Long-term clinical outcomes and adherence in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: primary results of the first brazilian registry of heart failure (BREATHE)

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF), a common cause of hospitalization, is associated with poor short-term clinical outcomes. Little is known about the long-term prognosis of patients with HF in Latin America. METHODS: BREATHE was the first nationwide prospective observational study in Brazil that included patients hospitalized due to acute HF. Patients were included during 2 time periods: February 2011-December 2012 and June 2016-July 2018. In-hospital management and 12-month clinical outcomes were assessed, and adherence to evidence-based therapies was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3013 patients were enrolled at 71 centers in Brazil. At hospital admission, 83.8% had clear signs of pulmonary congestion. The main cause of decompensation was poor adherence to HF medications (27.8%). Among patients with reduced ejection fraction, concomitant use of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, and spironolactone numerical decreased from 44.5% at hospital discharge to 35.2% at 3 months. The cumulative incidence of mortality at 12 months was 27.7%, with 24.3% readmission at 90 days and 44.4% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national prospective registry of patients hospitalized with acute HF, rates of mortality and readmission were higher than those reported globally. Poor adherence to evidence-based therapies was common at hospital discharge and 12 months of follow-up.

Rivaroxaban to prevent major clinical outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the CARE - COALITION VIII randomised clinical trial.

Background: COVID-19 progression is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Randomised trials have demonstrated that anticoagulants reduce the risk of thromboembolism in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but a benefit of routine anticoagulation has not been demonstrated in the outpatient setting. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open-label, controlled, multicentre study, evaluating the use of rivaroxaban in mild or moderate COVID-19 patients. Adults ≥18 years old, with probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, presenting within ≤7 days from symptom onset with no clear indication for hospitalization, plus at least 2 risk factors for complication, were randomised 1:1 either to rivaroxaban 10 mg OD for 14 days or to routine care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of venous thromboembolic events, need of mechanical ventilation, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or death due to COVID-19 during the first 30 days. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04757857. Findings: Enrollment was prematurely stopped due to sustained reduction in new COVID-19 cases. From September 29th, 2020, through May 23rd, 2022, 660 patients were randomised (median age 61 [Q1-Q3 47-69], 55.7% women). There was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and control in the primary efficacy endpoint (4.3% [14/327] vs 5.8% [19/330], RR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.46). There was no major bleeding in the control group and 1 in the rivaroxaban group. Interpretation: On light of these findings no decision can be made about the utility of rivaroxaban to improve outcomes in outpatients with COVID-19. Metanalyses data provide no evidence of a benefit of anticoagulant prophylaxis in outpatients with COVID-19. These findings were the result of an underpowered study, therefore should be interpreted with caution. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer S.A.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A randomized, Phase II/III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocol and statistical analysis plan. / Antivirais para pacientes adultos hospitalizados com infecção por SARS-CoV-2: Um estudo de Fase II/III, randomizado, multicêntrico, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, com múltiplos braços e estágios. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocolo e plano de análise estatística.

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04468087.

Antivirais para pacientes adultos hospitalizados com infecção por SARS-CoV-2: Um estudo de Fase II/III, randomizado, multicêntrico, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, com múltiplos braços e estágios. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocolo e plano de análise estatística / Antivirals for adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A randomized, Phase II/III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocol and statistical analysis plan

RESUMO Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04468087

ABSTRACT Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT04468087

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Femoral versus radial access in primary angioplasty. Analysis of the ACCEPT registry.

BACKGROUND: The radial access provides a lower risk of bleeding and vascular complications related to the puncture site in comparison to the femoral access. Recent studies have suggested a reduction in mortality associated with the radial access in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing primary angioplasty according to the type of arterial access route. METHODS: From August 2010 to December 2011, 588 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were assessed; they were recruited from 47 centers participating in the ACCEPT registry. Patients were grouped and compared according to the arterial access used for the procedure. RESULTS: The mean age was 61.8 years; 75% were males and 24% had diabetes mellitus. There was no difference between groups as regards the procedure success rate, as well as regards the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or stroke at six months of follow-up. Severe bleeding was reported in 1.1% of the sample analyzed, with no statistical difference related to the access used. CONCLUSIONS: The femoral and radial accesses are equally safe and effective for the performance of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The low rate of cardiovascular events and of hemorrhagic complications reflects the quality of the participating centers and the operators expertise with the use of both techniques.

Femoral versus Radial Access in Primary Angioplasty. Analysis of the ACCEPT Registry / Via de Acesso Femoral versus Radial na Angioplastia Primária. Análise do Registro ACCEPT

Background: The radial access provides a lower risk of bleeding and vascular complications related to the puncture site in comparison to the femoral access. Recent studies have suggested a reduction in mortality associated with the radial access in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Objective: To compare the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing primary angioplasty according to the type of arterial access route. Methods: From August 2010 to December 2011, 588 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were assessed; they were recruited from 47 centers participating in the ACCEPT registry. Patients were grouped and compared according to the arterial access used for the procedure. Results: The mean age was 61.8 years; 75% were males and 24% had diabetes mellitus. There was no difference between groups as regards the procedure success rate, as well as regards the occurrence of death, reinfarction, or stroke at six months of follow-up. Severe bleeding was reported in 1.1% of the sample analyzed, with no statistical difference related to the access used. Conclusions: The femoral and radial accesses are equally safe and effective for the performance of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The low rate of cardiovascular events and of hemorrhagic complications reflects the quality of the participating centers and the operators expertise with the use of both techniques. .

Fundamentos: O acesso radial promove menor risco de sangramento e complicações vasculares relacionadas ao sítio de punção quando comparado ao acesso femoral. Estudos recentes sugerem redução de mortalidade favorável ao primeiro em pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio submetidos à intervenção coronária percutânea. Objetivo: Comparar a ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares adversos isquêmicos e hemorrágicos em pacientes submetidos à angioplastia primária conforme a via de acesso arterial. Métodos: No período de agosto de 2010 a dezembro de 2011, foram avaliados 588 pacientes que realizaram intervenção coronária percutânea primária na vigência de um infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento de ST, incluídos em 47 centros participantes do registro ACCEPT. Os pacientes foram agrupados e comparados de acordo com a via de acesso arterial utilizada para a efetivação do procedimento. Resultados: A média de idade foi de 61,8 anos, sendo 75% pertencentes ao sexo masculino e 24% portadores de diabetes melito. Não houve diferença entre os grupos na taxa de sucesso do procedimento, bem como na ocorrência de óbito, reinfarto ou acidente vascular encefálico aos seis meses de seguimento. Sangramento grave foi relatado em 1,1% da amostra analisada, sem diferença estatística conforme a via de acesso utilizada. Conclusões: As vias de acesso femoral e radial são igualmente seguras e eficazes para a realização de intervenção coronária percutânea primária. A baixa taxa de eventos cardiovasculares, bem como de complicações hemorrágicas, reflete a qualidade dos centros participantes e a experiência dos operadores com a utilização de ambas as técnicas. .

[Positive troponin T in a chagasic patient with sustained ventricular tachycardia and no obstructive lesions on cine coronary angiography]. / Troponina T positiva em paciente chagásico com taquicardia ventricular sustentada e cinecoronariografia sem lesões obstrutivas.

The assessment and stratification of patients with chest pain in the emergency unit may indicate the appropriate therapy for each patient based on the probability of the presence of acute coronary artery disease and on the risk of its major cardiac events. That assessment is based on the triplet: clinical setting, electrocardiographic findings, and markers of myocardial lesion. We report the case of a 58-year-old male chagasic patient admitted to the emergency unit due to chest pain and palpitations, with an electrocardiogram showing sustained ventricular tachycardia and positive troponin measurement (0.99 ng/mL). The patient underwent cine coronary angiography, which evidenced no obstructive coronary artery disease.

Troponina T positiva em paciente chagásico com taquicardia ventricular sustentada e cinecoronariografia sem lesões obstrutivas / Positive troponin T in a chagasic patient with sustained ventricular tachycardia and no obstructive lesions on cine coronary angiography

A avaliação e estratificação de pacientes com dor torácica na sala de emergência pode nos direcionar a terapêutica adequada a cada paciente baseada na probabilidade da presença de doença coronariana aguda e no risco de eventos cardíacos maiores desta coronariopatia. Esta avaliação é baseada no tripé: quadro clínico, achados eletrocardiográficos e nos marcadores de lesão miocárdica. Relatamos o caso de um paciente chagásico de 58 anos de idade admitido na unidade de emergência por dor torácica e palpitações, com eletrocardiograma mostrando uma taquicardia ventricular sustentada e com dosagem de troponina positiva (0,99 ng/ml), submetido a cinecoronariografia, que não evidenciou doença coronariana obstrutiva.

Infarto do miocárdio em hipertensos / Myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients

A hipertensão arterial sistêmica é, juntamente com dislipidemia e tabagismo, um dos três fatores de risco mais importantes para desenvolvimento de infarto agudo do miocárdio. Em pacientes com infarto do miocárdio, a prevalência de hipertensão arterial chega a 37 por cento. Nesta revisão, analisam-se semelhanças e diferenças entre hipertensos e normotensos com infarto agudo do miocárdio, no que se refere a diagnóstico, terapêutico e prognóstico. Ao final, conclui-se que a presença de hipertensão arterial tem evidentes implicações diagnósticas e terapêuticas, piorando o prognóstico desses indivíduos, tanto o curto como o longo prazos.