Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis.

Background: Hypertension is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Whether renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are beneficial or harmful is controversial. Methods: We have performed a national retrospective, nonexperimental comparative study from two tertiary hospitals to evaluate the impact of chronic use of RAAS inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to strengthen our findings. Results: Of 849 patients, 422 (49.7%) patients were hypertensive and 310 (73.5%) were taking RAAS inhibitors at baseline. Hypertensive patients were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater incidence of respiratory failure (-0.151 [95% CI -0.218, -0.084]). Overall mortality in hypertensive patients was 28.4%, but smaller among those with prescribed RAAS inhibitors before (-0.167 [95% CI -0.220, -0.114]) and during hospitalization (0.090 [-0.008,0.188]). Similar findings were observed after two propensity score matches that evaluated the benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among hypertensive patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of hypertensive patients found that age, diabetes mellitus, C-reactive protein, and renal failure were independently associated with all-cause mortality. On the contrary, ACEIs decreased the risk of death (OR 0.444 [95% CI 0.224-0.881]). Meta-analysis suggested a protective benefit of RAAS inhibitors (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.42-0.8]) among hypertensive COVID-19. Conclusion: Our data suggest that RAAS inhibitors may play a protective role in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis of the current evidence. Maintaining these medications during hospital stay may not negatively affect COVID-19 outcomes.

Introducción: La hipertensión es una condición prevalente entre los pacientes infectados por el SARS-CoV-2. Es controvertido si los inhibidores del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona (SRAA) son beneficiosos o perjudiciales. Métodos: Hemos desarrollado un estudio comparativo nacional retrospectivo y no experimental en 2 hospitales terciarios para evaluar el impacto del uso crónico de inhibidores del SRAA en pacientes hipertensos con COVID-19. Se realizó un metaanálisis para reforzar los hallazgos. Resultados: De 849 pacientes, 422 (49,7%) eran hipertensos y 310 (73,5%) tomaban inhibidores del SRAA al inicio del estudio. Los pacientes hipertensos eran mayores, tenían más comorbilidades y una mayor incidencia de insuficiencia respiratoria (−0,151; IC 95%: [−0,218; −0,084]). La mortalidad global en los pacientes hipertensos fue del 28,4%, pero fue menor entre los que tenían prescritos inhibidores del SRAA antes (−0,167; IC 95%: [−0,220; −0,114]) y durante la hospitalización (0,090; [−0,008; 0,188]). Se observaron hallazgos similares tras 2 emparejamientos de puntuación de propensión que evaluaron el beneficio de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina y los bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina entre los pacientes hipertensos. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante de los pacientes hipertensos reveló que la edad, la diabetes mellitus, la proteína C reactiva y la insuficiencia renal se asociaban de forma independiente con la mortalidad por todas las causas. Por el contrario, los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina disminuyeron el riesgo de muerte (OR 0,444; IC 95%: 0,224-0,881). El metaanálisis indicó un beneficio protector de los inhibidores del SRAA (OR 0,6; IC 95%: 0,42-0,8) entre los hipertensos con COVID-19. Conclusión: Nuestros datos indican que los inhibidores del SRAA pueden desempeñar un papel protector en los pacientes hipertensos con COVID-19. Este hallazgo fue apoyado por un metaanálisis de la evidencia actual. Su mantenimiento durante la estancia hospitalaria puede no afectar negativamente a los resultados de la COVID-19.

Should PRECISE-DAPT be included for long-term prognostic stratification of diabetic patients with NSTEACS?

AIMS: There are insufficient data regarding risk scores validation in patients with diabetes mellitus and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). We performed a diabetes mellitus-specific analysis of cardiovascular outcomes after NSTEACS. We tested the predictive power of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and PREdicting bleeding Complications In patients undergoing Stent implantation and subsEquent Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) scores. METHODS: This work is a retrospective analysis that included 7,415 consecutive NSTEACS patients from two Spanish Universitarian hospitals between the years 2003 and 2017. The area under the ROC curve among with and without diabetes mellitus patients was calculated, to evaluate the predictive power of both scores.  RESULTS: Among the study participants, 2124 patients (28.0%) were diabetic. The median follow-up was 54,3 months (IQR 24,7-80,0 months). Diabetic patients were more women (30.5% vs. 25.7%) and older (70.0 ± 10.8 vs. 65.3 ± 13.2 years old); they had higher GRACE (146 ± 36 vs. 137 ± 36), PRECISE-DAPT (15 ± 7 vs. 18 ± 9) at admission. Early invasive coronary angiography (≤ 24 h after admission) was performed more frequently in non-diabetic. We tested the predictive power of the GRACE and PRECISE-DAPT risk scores among diabetic and non-diabetic. PRECISE-DAPT risk score showed a good predictive power for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MACE in diabetic admitted with NSTEACS, without differences compared to non-diabetic. CONCLUSIONS: PRECISE-DAPT risk score has an appropriate predictive power in diabetic patients admitted with NSTEACS compared to non-diabetic NSTEACS. However, GRACE would be predictive worse in diabetic during long-term follow-up in a large contemporary registry.

Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Whether renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are beneficial or harmful is controversial. METHODS: We have performed a national retrospective, nonexperimental comparative study from two tertiary hospitals to evaluate the impact of chronic use of RAAS inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to strengthen our findings. RESULTS: Of 849 patients, 422 (49.7%) patients were hypertensive and 310 (73.5%) were taking RAAS inhibitors at baseline. Hypertensive patients were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater incidence of respiratory failure (-0.151 [95% CI -0.218, -0.084]). Overall mortality in hypertensive patients was 28.4%, but smaller among those with prescribed RAAS inhibitors before (-0.167 [95% CI -0.220, -0.114]) and during hospitalization (0.090 [-0.008,0.188]). Similar findings were observed after two propensity score matches that evaluated the benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among hypertensive patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of hypertensive patients found that age, diabetes mellitus, C-reactive protein, and renal failure were independently associated with all-cause mortality. On the contrary, ACEIs decreased the risk of death (OR 0.444 [95% CI 0.224-0.881]). Meta-analysis suggested a protective benefit of RAAS inhibitors (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.42-0.8]) among hypertensive COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that RAAS inhibitors may play a protective role in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis of the current evidence. Maintaining these medications during hospital stay may not negatively affect COVID-19 outcomes.

Validation of multiparametric approaches for the prediction of sudden cardiac death in patients with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multiparametric scores have been designed for better risk stratification in Brugada syndrome (BrS). We aimed to validate 3 multiparametric approaches (the Delise score, Sieira score and the Shanghai BrS Score) in a cohort with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study (EPS). METHODS: We included patients diagnosed with BrS and previous EPS between 1998 and 2019 in 23 hospitals. C-statistic analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used. RESULTS: A total of 831 patients were included (mean age, 42.8±13.1; 623 [75%] men; 386 [46.5%] had a type 1 electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern, 677 [81.5%] were asymptomatic, and 319 [38.4%] had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). During a follow-up of 10.2±4.7 years, 47 (5.7%) experienced a cardiovascular event. In the global cohort, a type 1 ECG and syncope were predictive of arrhythmic events. All risk scores were significantly associated with events. The discriminatory abilities of the 3 scores were modest (particularly when these scores were evaluated in asymptomatic patients). Evaluation of the Delise and Sieira scores with different numbers of extra stimuli (1 or 2 vs 3) did not substantially improve the event prediction c-index. CONCLUSIONS: In BrS, classic risk factors such as ECG pattern and previous syncope predict arrhythmic events. The predictive capabilities of the EPS are affected by the number of extra stimuli required to induce ventricular arrhythmias. Scores combining clinical risk factors with EPS help to identify the populations at highest risk, although their predictive abilities remain modest in the general BrS population and in asymptomatic patients.

The COVID-19 lab score: an accurate dynamic tool to predict in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Deterioration is sometimes unexpected in SARS-CoV2 infection. The aim of our study is to establish laboratory predictors of mortality in COVID-19 disease which can help to identify high risk patients. All patients admitted to hospital due to Covid-19 disease were included. Laboratory biomarkers that contributed with significant predictive value for predicting mortality to the clinical model were included. Cut-off points were established, and finally a risk score was built. 893 patients were included. Median age was 68.2 ± 15.2 years. 87(9.7%) were admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and 72(8.1%) needed mechanical ventilation support. 171(19.1%) patients died. A Covid-19 Lab score ranging from 0 to 30 points was calculated on the basis of a multivariate logistic regression model in order to predict mortality with a weighted score that included haemoglobin, erythrocytes, leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, creatinine, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and D-dimer. Three groups were established. Low mortality risk group under 12 points, 12 to 18 were included as moderate risk, and high risk group were those with 19 or more points. Low risk group as reference, moderate and high patients showed mortality OR 4.75(CI95% 2.60-8.68) and 23.86(CI 95% 13.61-41.84), respectively. C-statistic was 0-85(0.82-0.88) and Hosmer-Lemeshow p-value 0.63. Covid-19 Lab score can very easily predict mortality in patients at any moment during admission secondary to SARS-CoV2 infection. It is a simple and dynamic score, and it can be very easily replicated. It could help physicians to identify high risk patients to foresee clinical deterioration.

Impact of the presence of heart disease, cardiovascular medications and cardiac events on outcome in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk factors and usage of cardiovascular medication are prevalent among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Little is known about the cardiovascular implications of COVID-19. The goal herein, was to evaluate the prognostic impact of having heart disease (HD) and taking cardiovascular medications in a population diagnosed of COVID-19 who required hospitalization. Also, we studied the development of cardiovascular events during hospitalization. METHODS: Consecutive patients with definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 made by a positive real time- -polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swabs who were admitted to the hospital from March 15 to April 14 were included in a retrospective registry. The association of HD with mortality and with mortality or respiratory failure were the primary and secondary objectives, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 859 patients were included in the present analysis. Cardiovascular risk factors were related to death, particularly diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio in the multivariate analysis: 1.810 [1.159- -2.827], p = 0.009). A total of 113 (13.1%) patients had HD. The presence of HD identified a group of patients with higher mortality (35.4% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) but HD was not independently related to prognosis; renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and beta-blockers did not worsen prognosis. Statins were independently associated with decreased mortality (0.551 [0.329-0.921], p = 0.023). Cardiovascular events during hospitalization identified a group of patients with poor outcome (mortality 31.8% vs. 19.3% without cardiovascular events, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of HD is related to higher mortality. Cardiovascular medications taken before admission are not harmful, statins being protective. The development of cardiovascular events during the course of the disease is related to poor outcome.

Long-term prognosis of women with Brugada syndrome and electrophysiological study.

BACKGROUND: A male predominance in Brugada syndrome (BrS) has been widely reported, but scarce information on female patients with BrS is available. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis of women with BrS. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of patients diagnosed with BrS and previous electrophysiological study (EPS) was performed. RESULTS: Among 770 patients, 177 (23%) were female. At presentation, 150 (84.7%) were asymptomatic. Females presented less frequently with a type 1 electrocardiographic pattern (30.5% vs 55.0%; P <.001), had a higher rate of family history of sudden cardiac death (49.7% vs 29.8%; P <.001), and had less sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) on EPS (8.5% vs 15.1%; P = .009). Genetic testing was performed in 79 females (45% of the sample) and was positive in 34 (19%). An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted in 48 females (27.1%). During mean (± SD) follow-up of 122.17 ± 57.28 months, 5 females (2.8%) experienced a cardiovascular event compared to 42 males (7.1%; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, a positive genetic test (18.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-192.53; P = .01) and atrial fibrillation (odds ratio 21.12; 95% CI 1.27-350.85; P = .03) were predictive of arrhythmic events, whereas VAs on EPS (neither with 1 or 2 extrastimuli nor 3 extrastimuli) were not. CONCLUSION: Women with BrS represent a minor fraction among patients with BrS, and although their rate of events is low, they do not constitute a risk-free group. Neither clinical risk factors nor EPS predicts future arrhythmic events. Only atrial fibrillation and positive genetic test were identified as risk factors for future arrhythmic events.