Videolaryngoscope versus conventional technique for insertion of a transesophageal echocardiography probe in intubated ICU patients (VIDLARECO trial): A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion in intubated critically ill patients can be difficult, leading to complications, such as gastric bleeding or lesions in the oropharyngeal mucosa. We hypothesised that the use of a videolaryngoscope would facilitate the first attempt at insertion of the transesophageal echocardiogram probe and would decrease the incidence of complications compared to the conventional insertion technique. METHODS: In this clinical trial, patients were randomly assigned the insertion of a transesophageal echocardiogram probe using a videolaryngoscope or conventional technique. The primary outcome was the successful transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion on the first attempt. The secondary outcomes included total success rate, number of insertion attempts, and incidence of pharyngeal complications. RESULTS: A total of 100 intubated critically ill patients were enrolled. The success rate of transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion on the first attempt was higher in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (90% vs. 58%; absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI 16%-48%; p < 0.001). The overall success rate was higher in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (100% vs. 72%; absolute difference, 28%; 95% CI 16%-40%; p < 0.001). The incidence of pharyngeal mucosal injury was smaller in the videolaryngoscope group than in the conventional group (14% vs. 52%; absolute difference, 38%; 95% CI 21%-55%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that in intubated critically ill patients required transesophageal echocardiogram, the use of videolaryngoscope resulted in higher successful insertion on the first attempt with lower rate of complications when compared with the conventional insertion technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04980976.

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.

Patrón de deformación miocárdica del ventrículo izquierdo en la estenosis aórtica grave sin amiloidosis cardiaca. Estudio AMY-TAVI / Left ventricle myocardial deformation pattern in severe aortic valve stenosis without cardiac amyloidosis. The AMY-TAVI trial

No disponible

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

La insuficiencia renal crónica se asocia a un peor pronóstico tras implante de stent liberador de sirolimus / Chronic renal failure is associated with worse outcome after implantation of sirolimus eluting stent

Fundamento y objetivos: La insuficiencia renal crónica (IRC) es una patología emergente en los países desarrollados, asociándose esta además con una elevada prevalencia de enfermedad coronaria. Nuestro objetivo es determinar la influencia de la IRC en la aparición de eventos cardiovasculares adversos tras implante de un stent liberador de sirolimus (SLS) en una población no seleccionada.Pacientes y método: Estudio retrospectivo de una cohorte de 461 pacientes a los que se les implantó, de forma consecutiva, uno o más stents liberadores de sirolimus entre septiembre de 2002 y diciembre de 2005 en nuestro centro. Evaluamos la incidencia de eventos adversos durante el seguimiento y su relación con la IRC. Utilizamos la ecuación de MDRD para el cálculo del filtrado glomerular.Resultados: El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 42 (DS±13) meses. La edad media fue 61,3 (DS±11,8) años, y el 85,5% eran varones. En total presentaban IRC 50 (11%) pacientes. En un modelo multivariado ajustado por edad, sexo, fracción de eyección, clase killip y la presencia de hipertensión, DM, anemia o trombosis del stent, la IRC se comportó como un potente predictor de mortalidad tanto al año como al final del seguimiento (RR=3,82; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 1,41–10,33, p=0,008) y como un factor independiente de riesgo aumentado de restenosis (RR=3,47; IC del 95%, 1,01–11,97; p=0,045) comparado con los pacientes sin IRC. Aunque con una mayor tendencia hacia el grupo de pacientes con IRC, no se observaron diferencias significativas en la incidencia de trombosis del stent (8% frente a 3,4% respectivamente, p=0,109) ni en la necesidad de nueva revascularización sobre el vaso diana (18,8% frente a 10,8% respectivamente, p=0,094).Conclusiones: La presencia de IRC en pacientes con enfermedad coronaria se asocia con un aumento en la incidencia de restenosis y es un potente predictor de mortalidad tras el implante de un stent liberador de sirolimus (AU)

Background and objectives: Chronic renal failure (CRF) is an emergent pathology in industrialized countries and is associated with high prevalence of coronary artery disease. Our aim is to determine the influence of CRF in the appearance of adverse cardiovascular events after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in a non selected cohort.Patients and methods: Observational retrospective study with a cohort of 461 patients who received one or more sirolimus-eluting stent between September 2002 and December 2005 at our institution. We evaluated the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events during the follow-up period and their relation with chronic kidney disease. We used the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation to calculate the GFR.Results: The mean follow-up was 42 months (SD±13) and the mean age was 61±11 years and 85 percent of the group were men. Chronic renal failure was present in 50 patients, 11 percent of the cohort. In a multivariate model, after adjustment for age, sex, left ventricle election fraction, anemia, diabetes, hypertension, Killip class and stent thrombosis, chronic renal failure was an independent predictive factor of death from any cause (hazard ratio, 3.82; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.41–10.33, p=0.008), and an significant risk factor for restenosis (hazard ratio 3.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01–11.97, p=0.045). Significant differences were not found in thrombosis between patients with or without CRF (8% vs 3.4%, p=0,109), although a trend was observed in the CRF group. There no were statistical association with need for a new target vessel revascularization (TVR) after coronary intervention either (18.8% versus 10.5%, p=0.094). Conclusions: The presence of chronic renal failure in patients with coronary disease is associated with higher risk of restenosis and is a potent predictor of mortality after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation

[Chronic renal failure is associated with worse outcome after implantation of sirolimus eluting stent]. / La insuficiencia renal crónica se asocia a un peor pronóstico tras implante de stent liberador de sirolimus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic renal failure (CRF) is an emergent pathology in industrialized countries and is associated with high prevalence of coronary artery disease. Our aim is to determine the influence of CRF in the appearance of adverse cardiovascular events after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in a non selected cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study with a cohort of 461 patients who received one or more sirolimus-eluting stent between September 2002 and December 2005 at our institution. We evaluated the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events during the follow-up period and their relation with chronic kidney disease. We used the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation to calculate the GFR. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 42 months (SD ± 13) and the mean age was 61 ± 11 years and 85 percent of the group were men. Chronic renal failure was present in 50 patients, 11 percent of the cohort. In a multivariate model, after adjustment for age, sex, left ventricle election fraction, anemia, diabetes, hypertension, Killip class and stent thrombosis, chronic renal failure was an independent predictive factor of death from any cause (hazard ratio, 3.82; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.41-10.33, p = 0.008), and an significant risk factor for restenosis (hazard ratio 3.47; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01-11.97, p = 0.045). Significant differences were not found in thrombosis between patients with or without CRF (8% vs 3.4%, p = 0,109), although a trend was observed in the CRF group. There no were statistical association with need for a new target vessel revascularization (TVR) after coronary intervention either (18.8% versus 10.5%, p = 0.094). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of chronic renal failure in patients with coronary disease is associated with higher risk of restenosis and is a potent predictor of mortality after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation.