Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID / Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry

Introducción y objetivos La Organización Mundial de la Salud calificó la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) como una pandemia global. No está claro si el tratamiento previo con inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina (IECA) y antagonistas de los receptores de angiotensina (ARA-II) tiene un impacto en el pronóstico de los pacientes infectados con COVID-19. El objetivo fue evaluar la implicación clínica del tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en el pronóstico de la COVID-19. Métodos Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de cohortes basado en todos los habitantes del área de salud. El análisis de los resultados principales (mortalidad, insuficiencia cardiaca, hospitalización, ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) y eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores [un compuesto de mortalidad e insuficiencia cardiaca]), se ajustó mediante modelos de regresión logística multivariada y modelos de coincidencia de puntaje de propensión. Resultados De una población total, 447.979 habitantes, 965 pacientes (0,22%), fueron diagnosticados de infección por COVID-19, 210 (21,8%) estaban bajo tratamiento con IECA o ARA-II en el momento del diagnóstico. El tratamiento con IECA/ARA-II (combinado e individualmente) no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad (OR=0,62; IC95%, 0,17-2,26; p=0,486), insuficiencia cardiaca (OR=1,37; IC95%, 0,39-4,77; p=0,622), tasa de hospitalización (OR=0,85; IC95%, 0,45-1,64; p=0,638), ingreso en UCI (OR=0,87; IC95%, 0,30-2,50; p=0,798) y cardiopatía aguda grave eventos (OR=1,06; IC95%, 0,39-2,83; p=0,915). En el análisis del subgrupos de pacientes que requirieron hospitalización, el efecto se mantuvo neutral. Conclusiones El tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad, la aparición de insuficiencia cardíaca, ni en la necesidad de hospitalización ni ingreso en UCI. La supresión de IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 ... . (AU)

Introduction and objectives Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. Methods Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. Results Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. Conclusions Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies. (AU)

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.

[Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry]. / Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P = .486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P = .622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P = .638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P = .798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P = .915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.

Different Phenotypes of Anderson-Fabry Disease Identified with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Family with the Same Late-Onset Mutation.

BACKGROUND Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is the only noninvasive test capable of differentiating between hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and late-onset Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD). The purpose of this report is to show how CMR led to diagnosis of AFD in 3 family members, 1 of whom previously was misdiagnosed with HCM, and how late-onset AFD can present with different cardiac phenotypes, even in a family with the same pathogenic mutation. CASE REPORT A 60-year-old man was referred because of evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) on an electrocardiogram (ECG) that was performed to screen for cardiomyopathy. One of his siblings previously had been diagnosed with HCM and atrial fibrillation. The patient's ECG and echocardiographic findings were suspicious for HCM. CMR showed severe symmetrical LVH but tissue characterization sequences were highly suggestive of AFD cardiomyopathy. Enzymatic and genetic testing confirmed the diagnosis of late-onset AFD (presence of the GLA p.F113.L mutation). The brother of the index patient then was re-evaluated and also diagnosed with late-onset AFD. He was found to have the same pathogenic mutation but with a presentation of asymmetrical septal LVH. The daughter of the index patient was positive for the same mutation but did not have LVH. CONCLUSIONS The fact that patients with late-onset AFD can present with different LVH and fibrosis patterns, even in the presence of the same pathogenic mutation, underscores the importance of including AFD in the differential diagnosis of HCM. CMR is fundamental for differentiating between those 2 entities and defining the pathological phase of AFD. A correct diagnosis can have a substantial impact on patient management, and more so on thier families.

Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID / mpact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: La Organización Mundial de la Salud calificó la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) como una pandemia global. No está claro si el tratamiento previo con inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina (IECA) y antagonistas de los receptores de angiotensina (ARA-II) tiene un impacto en el pronóstico de los pacientes infectados con COVID-19. El objetivo fue evaluar la implicación clínica del tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en el pronóstico de la COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de cohortes basado en todos los habitantes del área de salud. El análisis de los resultados principales (mortalidad, insuficiencia cardiaca, hospitalización, ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) y eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores [un compuesto de mortalidad e insuficiencia cardiaca]), se ajustó mediante modelos de regresión logística multivariada y modelos de coincidencia de puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De una población total, 447.979 habitantes, 965 pacientes (0,22%), fueron diagnosticados de infección por COVID-19, 210 (21,8%) estaban bajo tratamiento con IECA o ARA-II en el momento del diagnóstico. El tratamiento con IECA/ARA-II (combinado e individualmente) no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad (OR=0,62; IC95%, 0,17-2,26; p = 0,486), insuficiencia cardiaca (OR=1,37; IC95%, 0,39-4,77; p = 0,622), tasa de hospitalización (OR=0,85; IC95%, 0,45-1,64; p = 0,638), ingreso en UCI (OR=0,87; IC95%, 0,30-2,50; p = 0,798) y cardiopatía aguda grave eventos (OR=1,06; IC95%, 0,39-2,83; p = 0,915). En el análisis del subgrupos de pacientes que requirieron hospitalización, el efecto se mantuvo neutral. CONCLUSIONES: El tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no tuvo efecto sobre la mortalidad, la aparición de insuficiencia cardíaca, ni en la necesidad de hospitalización ni ingreso en UCI. La supresión de IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no estaría justificada en ningún caso, de acuerdo a las recomendaciones actuales de las sociedades científicas y las agencias gubernamentales

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies

Ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with Brugada syndrome: A systematic review of the literature.

Supraventricular arrhythmias are common in Brugada syndrome (BS), and notoriously difficult to manage with medical therapy secondary to associated risks. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is often utilized instead, but its outcomes in this population are not well-known. We aim to provide a holistic evaluation of interventional treatment for Atrial fibrillation (AF) in the BS population. Electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane, and Scopus were systematically searched for publications between 01/01/1995 and 12/31/2017. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 49 patients with BS and AF were included. Age range from 28.8 to 64 years, and 77.5% were male. 38 patients were implanted with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) at baseline, and of them, 39% suffered inappropriate shocks for rapid AF. 34/49 (69%) of patients achieved remission following a single PVI procedure. Of the remaining, 13 patients underwent one or more repeat ablation procedures. Overall, 45/49 (91.8%) of patients remained in remission during long-term follow-up after one or more PVI procedures in the absence of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy. Postablation, no patients suffered inappropriate ICD shock. Furthermore, no major complications secondary to PVI occurred in any patient. AF ablation achieves acute and long-term success in the vast majority of patients. It is effective in preventing inappropriate ICD therapy secondary to rapid AF. Complication rates of PVI in BS are low. Thus, in light of the risks of AADs and risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in the BS population, catheter ablation could represent an appropriate first-line therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in BS patients.

Long-term prognosis of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias induced by coronary artery spasm.

Aims: Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VA). Much controversy remains regarding the best therapeutic interventions for this specific patient subset. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with a history of life-threatening VA due to CAS with various medical interventions, as well as the need for ICD placement in the setting of optimal medical therapy. Methods and results: A multicentre European retrospective survey of patients with VA in the setting of CAS was aggregated and relevant clinical and demographic data was analysed. Forty-nine appropriate patients were identified: 43 (87.8%) presented with VF and 6 (12.2%) with rapid VT. ICD implantation was performed in 44 (89.8%). During follow-up [59 (17-117) months], appropriate ICD shocks were documented in 12. In 8/12 (66.6%) no more ICD therapies were recorded after optimizing calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy. SCD occurred in one patient without ICD. Treatment with beta-blockers was predictive of appropriate device discharge. Conversely, non-dihydropyridine CCB therapy was significantly protective against VAs. Conclusion: Patients with life-threatening VAs secondary to CAS are at particularly high-risk for recurrence, especially when insufficient medical therapy is administered. Non-dihydropyridine CCBs are capable of suppressing episodes, whereas beta-blocker treatment is predictive of VAs. Ultimately, in spite of medical intervention, some patients exhibited arrhythmogenic events in the long-term, suggesting that ICD implantation may still be indicated for all.