Prevalence and Burden of Carotid and Femoral Atherosclerosis in Subjects Without Known Cardiovascular Disease in a Large Community Hospital in South-America.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines recommend measurement of arterial (carotid and femoral) plaque burden by vascular ultrasound (VUS) as a risk modifier in individuals at low or moderate risk without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of carotid and femoral plaques by age and sex, the burden of subclinical atherosclerosis (SA), and its association with classic CVRF in subjects over 30 years of age without ASCVD. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 5775 consecutive subjects referred for cardiovascular evaluation and determined the prevalence and burden of SA using 2D-VUS in carotid and femoral arteries. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent were men with a mean age of 51.3 (SD 10.6) years. Overall, plaque prevalence was 51% in carotid arteries, 39.3% in femoral arteries, 62.4% in carotid or femoral arteries, and 37.6% in neither. The prevalence of plaques and SA burden showed an increasing trend with age, being higher in men than in women and starting before the age of 40, both in the carotid and femoral sites. There was also an increasing prevalence of plaques according to the number of CVRF, and interestingly we found a high prevalence of plaques in subjects with 0 or 1 classic CVRF. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased prevalence and burden of carotid or femoral SA, higher in men, beginning before the fourth decade of life and increasing with age. Despite a significant association with classic CVRF, a significant number of subjects with low CVRF were diagnosed with SA.

Impacto de un Heart Team en pacientes con estenosis aórtica candidatos a reemplazo percutáneo / Impact of a Heart Team in patients with aortic stenosis who are candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

RESUMEN La difusión del reemplazo valvular aórtico percutáneo (TAVI) en la estenosis aórtica (EAo) generó la creación de un Heart Team (HT), para elegir el mejor tratamiento. Existen pocos reportes sobre su utilidad. Objetivos: analizar los resultados del tratamiento de los pacientes con EAo evaluados por un HT durante 10 años Material y métodos: Inclusión consecutiva de todos los pacientes con EAo candidatos a TAVI entre enero del 2012 y julio del 2021 para seleccionar el mejor tratamiento, incluyendo además Cirugía de reemplazo valvular aórtico (CRVA) y Tratamiento médico conservador (TMC). Resultados: De 841 pacientes, se asignaron a TAVI 455 (53%), CRVA 213 (24%) y TMC 183 (23%). El porcentaje asignado a TAVI aumentó con el tiempo de 48 a 62% (p < 0,05). Los pacientes que fueron a TAVI, con respecto a los enviados a CRVA, eran mayores (86 ± 7 vs 83 ± 7 años), con mayor EUROSCORE II (6,2, IC95% 5,7-6,6 vs 5,6, IC95% 4,4-6,5) y más frágiles (1,62 ± 1 vs 0,91 ± 1), en todos los casos p <0,01. La sobrevida actuarial (IC 95%) a 1 y a 2 años fue, para TAVI 88% (84-91%) y 82% (77-86%), para CRVA 83% (76-88%) y 78% (70-84%) y para TMC 70% (60-87%) y 59% (48-68%) respectivamente (p <0,001). Conclusiones: Durante los primeros 10 años de establecido un Heart Team para la toma de decisiones en EAo, se asignaron a TAVI aproximadamente la mitad y el resto se asignó por mitades a cirugía u observación. La sobrevida de los pacientes intervenidos fue similar a 2 años y mayor que la de los no intervenidos.

ABSTRACT As transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis (AS) became widespread, the need for a Heart Team (HT) arose to choose the best treatment. There are few reports regarding its usefulness. Objectives: To analyze treatment outcomes in patients with AS evaluated by a HT for 10 years. Methods: Consecutive enrollment of all patients with AS who were candidates for TAVI between January 2012 and July 2021 to choose the best treatment, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and conservative medical management (CMM). Results: Out of 841 patients, 455 were assigned to TAVI (53%), 213 to SAVR (24%), and 183 to CMM (23%). The percentage assigned to TAVI has increased from 48% to 62% over time (p <0.05). Patients who underwent TAVI versus those who underwent SAVR were older (86 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 7 years), had a higher EUROSCORE II (6.2, 95% CI 5.7-6.6 vs. 5.6; 95% CI 4.4-6.5) and were frailer (1.62 ± 1 vs. 0.91 ± 1), in all cases p <0.01. Actuarial survival (95% CI) at 1 and 2 years was 88% (84-91%) and 82% (77-86%) for TAVI, 83% (76-88%) and 78% (70-84%) for SAVR, and 70% (60-87%) and 59% (48-68%) for CMM, respectively (p <0.001). Conclusions: For the first 10 years after a Heart Team was established for AS decision-making, approximately half of the patients were assigned to TAVI, and the rest were equally assigned in halves to either surgery or observation. Survival for patients who received interventions was similar at 2 years and higher than in those who did not.

[Role of polypills in cardiovascular risk reduction in primary prevention]. / Rol de las polipíldoras en la reducción del riesgo cardiovascular en prevención primaria.

Unlike medications that contain fixed-dose combinations, such as those recommended by clinical guidelines for treating high blood pressure, the so-called polypills contain several drugs that simultaneously treat two or more cardiovascular conditions or risk factors. They were proposed 2 decades ago, both for primary and secondary prevention with the hypothesis that they could have wide dissemination and population penetration, improving the use of therapeutics with proven benefits individually, thanks to an increase in patient adherence by reducing the number of daily tablets and also by having an equal or lower cost. In this simple review, we present a look at risk stratification different from that posed by clinical scores and summarize the benefits of polypills in the treatment of risk factors and in the reduction of major cardiovascular events. Additionally, we review the clinical messages of the HOPE-3 trial, which aim to control two of the most prevalent conditions, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, through a combination of candesartan, hydrochlorothiazide and rosuvastatin. Finally, we propose its potential indication in a heterogeneous health system such as that of our country, both at the population level based on intermediate or low risk, determined intuitively or using a risk calculator, as well as in the personalized care that is practiced in many health scenarios.

A diferencia de los medicamentos que contienen combinaciones de dosis fijas, como los recomendados por las guías clínicas para tratar la hipertensión arterial, las llamadas polipíldoras contienen varios fármacos que tratan simultáneamente dos o más afecciones cardiovasculares o factores de riesgo. Se propusieron hace 2 décadas, tanto para prevención primaria como secundaria, con la hipótesis de que tengan amplia difusión y penetración poblacional, es decir, que mejoren el uso de terapéuticas con probados beneficios en forma individual, gracias a un incremento en la adherencia de los pacientes al reducir el número de comprimidos diarios y también al tener un costo igual o menor. En esta revisión simple, planteamos una mirada de la estratificación del riesgo distinta a la planteada por los puntajes clínicos y resumimos los beneficios de las polipíldoras en el tratamiento de los factores de riesgo y en la reducción de eventos cardiovasculares mayores. Adicionalmente, repasamos los mensajes clínicos del ensayo HOPE-3, que apuntan a controlar dos de las condiciones más prevalentes, como son la hipertensión arterial y el colesterol elevado, mediante una combinación de candesartán, hidroclorotiazida y rosuvastatina. Finalmente, proponemos su potencial indicación en un sistema sanitario heterogéneo como el de nuestro país, tanto a nivel poblacional basado en el riesgo intermedio o bajo, determinado intuitivamente o usando un calculador de riesgo, así como también en la atención personalizada que se practica en muchos escenarios sanitarios.

Rol de las polipíldoras en la reducción del riesgo cardiovascular en prevención primaria / Role of polypills in cardiovascular risk reduction in primary prevention

Resumen A diferencia de los medicamentos que contienen combinaciones de dosis fijas, como los recomendados por las guías clínicas para tratar la hipertensión arterial, las llamadas polipíldoras contienen varios fármacos que tratan simultáneamente dos o más afecciones cardiovasculares o factores de riesgo. Se propusieron hace 2 décadas, tanto para prevención primaria como secundaria, con la hipótesis de que tengan amplia difusión y penetración poblacional, es decir, que mejoren el uso de terapéuticas con probados beneficios en forma individual, gracias a un incremento en la adherencia de los pacientes al reducir el número de com primidos diarios y también al tener un costo igual o menor. En esta revisión simple, planteamos una mirada de la estratificación del riesgo distinta a la planteada por los puntajes clínicos y resumimos los beneficios de las polipíldoras en el tratamiento de los factores de riesgo y en la reducción de eventos cardiovasculares mayores. Adicionalmente, repasamos los mensajes clínicos del ensayo HOPE-3, que apuntan a controlar dos de las con diciones más prevalentes, como son la hipertensión arterial y el colesterol elevado, mediante una combinación de candesartán, hidroclorotiazida y rosuvastatina. Finalmente, proponemos su potencial indicación en un sistema sanitario heterogéneo como el de nuestro país, tanto a nivel poblacional basado en el riesgo intermedio o bajo, determinado intuitivamente o usando un calculador de riesgo, así como también en la atención personalizada que se practica en muchos escenarios sanitarios.

Abstract Unlike medications that contain fixed-dose combinations, such as those recommended by clinical guidelines for treating high blood pressure, the so-called polypills contain several drugs that simultaneously treat two or more cardiovascular conditions or risk factors. They were proposed 2 decades ago, both for primary and secondary prevention with the hypothesis that they could have wide dissemination and population penetration, improving the use of therapeutics with proven benefits individually, thanks to an increase in patient adherence by reducing the number of daily tablets and also by having an equal or lower cost. In this simple review, we present a look at risk stratification different from that posed by clinical scores and summarize the benefits of polypills in the treatment of risk factors and in the reduction of major cardiovascular events. Additionally, we review the clinical messages of the HOPE-3 trial, which aim to control two of the most prevalent conditions, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol, through a combination of candesartan, hydrochlorothiazide and rosuvastatin. Finally, we propose its potential indication in a heterogeneous health system such as that of our country, both at the population level based on intermediate or low risk, determined intuitively or using a risk calculator, as well as in the personalized care that is practiced in many health scenarios.

Design and rationale of the inferior vena CAVA and Lung UltraSound-guided therapy in Acute Heart Failure (CAVAL US-AHF Study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Between 25% and 30% of patients hospitalised for acute heart failure (AHF) are readmitted within 90 days after discharge, mostly due to persistent congestion on discharge. However, as the optimal evaluation of decongestion is not clearly defined, it is necessary to implement new tools to identify subclinical congestion to guide treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if inferior vena cava (IVC) and lung ultrasound (CAVAL US)-guided therapy for AHF patients reduces subclinical congestion at discharge. METHODS: CAVAL US-AHF is a single-centre, single-blind randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate if an IVC and lung ultrasound-guided healthcare strategy is superior to standard care to reduce subclinical congestion at discharge. Fifty-eight patients with AHF will be randomised using a block randomisation programme that will assign to either lung and IVC ultrasound-guided decongestion therapy ('intervention group') or clinical-guided decongestion therapy ('control group'), using a quantitative protocol and will be classified in three groups according to the level of congestion observed: none or mild, moderate or severe. The treating physicians will know the result of the test and the subsequent adjustment of treatment in response to those findings guided by a customised therapeutic algorithm. The primary endpoint is the presence of more than five B-lines and/or an increase in the diameter of the IVC, with and without collapsibility. The secondary endpoints are the composite of readmission for HF, unplanned visit for worsening HF or death at 90 days, variation of pro-B-type natriuretic peptide at discharge, length of hospital stay and diuretic dose at 90 days. Analyses will be conducted as between-group by intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board and registered in the PRIISA.BA platform of the Ministry of Health of the City of Buenos Aires. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04549701.

Recomendaciones de manejo de los anticoagulantes orales directos (DOACs) anti Xa y anti IIa / Recommendations for the practical management of the direct oral anticoagulants anti Xa and anti IIa

Resumen Los anticoagulantes orales directos han surgido como una de las herramientas que ha cambiado el manejo de la enfermedad trombótica en los últimos 15 años. Sus ventajas, desde el punto de vista de la facilidad de uso y menor riesgo de sangrado, especialmente de sangrado cerebral, han posicionado a estos nuevos anticoagulantes como la primera alternativa de tratamiento en las dos indicaciones más frecuentes en que necesitamos estas drogas, la fibrilación auricular y la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa. Sin embargo, no todos los pacientes pueden recibir estos agentes, no todos los anticoagulantes directos tienen las mismas pro piedades y fundamentalmente, no todas las enfermedades con indicación de un anticoagulante pueden tratarse con ellos;con lo cual es necesario que todos los profesionales que están involucrados en el manejo de estos medicamentos estén obligados a conocerlos en profundidad, para poder decidir el mejor tratamiento en cada caso particular. Este documento de posición de expertos de diferentes especialidades de Argentina, presenta lineamientos para el uso correcto de los anticoagulantes directos en base a nueva evidencia y a la experiencia de uso de un amplio grupo de profesionales. La forma de relacionarnos con el tratamiento anticoagulante ha cambiado. Los médicos que trabajamos con ellos también debemos hacerlo.

Abstract Direct oral anticoagulants have emerged as the drugs that have changed the man agement of the antithrombotic treatment in the last 15 years. Their advantages, like a more friendly way of anticoagulation and their lower risk of bleeding, especially in the brain, have positioned these new anticoagu lants as the first drug of choice in the two most frequent indications of anticoagulation, atrial fibrillation, and the venous thromboembolic disease. However, not all the patients can receive these agents, not all the direct oral anticoagulants have the same characteristics, and most importantly, not all the diseases with an indication of an anticoagulant drug can be treated with them. Therefore, it is mandatory that all the faculties involved in the management of these drugs must know them in depth, to decide the best treatment for the patient. This position paper, from a group of experts in anticoagulation in Argentina, can help the general practitioner in the daily use of direct oral anticoagulants based on the new evidence and the experience of a wide group of professionals. The way we relate to the anticoagulant treatment has changed in the last years. The doctors who work with them must also do so.

[MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS (DOACs) ANTI Xa AND ANTI IIa]. / RECOMENDACIONES DE MANEJO DE LOS ANTICOAGULANTES ORALES DIRECTOS (DOACS) ANTI Xa Y ANTI IIa.

Direct oral anticoagulants have emerged as the drugs that have changed the management of the antithrombotic treatment in the last 15 years. Their advantages, like a more friendly way of anticoagulation and their lower risk of bleeding, especially in the brain, have positioned these new anticoagulants as the first drug of choice in the two most frequent indications of anticoagulation, atrial fibrillation, and the venous thromboembolic disease. However, not all the patients can receive these agents, not all the direct oral anticoagulants have the same characteristics, and most importantly, not all the diseases with an indication of an anticoagulant drug can be treated with them. Therefore, it is mandatory that all the faculties involved in the management of these drugs must know them in depth, to decide the best treatment for the patient. This position paper, from a group of experts in anticoagulation in Argentina, can help the general practitioner in the daily use of direct oral anticoagulants based on the new evidence and the experience of a wide group of professionals. The way we relate to the anticoagulant treatment has changed in the last years. The doctors who work with them must also do so.

Los anticoagulantes orales directos han surgido como una de las herramientas que ha cambiado el manejo de la enfermedad trombótica en los últimos 15 años. Sus ventajas, desde el punto de vista de la facilidad de uso y menor riesgo de sangrado, especialmente de sangrado cerebral, han posicionado a estos nuevos anticoagulantes como la primera alternativa de tratamiento en las dos indicaciones más frecuentes en que necesitamos estas drogas, la fibrilación auricular y la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa. Sin embargo, no todos los pacientes pueden recibir estos agentes, no todos los anticoagulantes directos tienen las mismas propiedades y fundamentalmente, no todas las enfermedades con indicación de un anticoagulante pueden tratarse con ellos;con lo cual es necesario que todos los profesionales que están involucrados en el manejo de estos medicamentos estén obligados a conocerlos en profundidad, para poder decidir el mejor tratamiento en cada caso particular. Este documento de posición de expertos de diferentes especialidades de Argentina, presenta lineamientos para el uso correcto de los anticoagulantes directos en base a nueva evidencia y a la experiencia de uso de un amplio grupo de profesionales. La forma de relacionarnos con el tratamiento anticoagulante ha cambiado. Los médicos que trabajamos con ellos también debemos hacerlo.

Effect of Colchicine vs Usual Care Alone on Intubation and 28-Day Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.

Uso de agentes hipolipemiantes y cumplimiento de metas terapéuticas en pacientes de alto riesgo cardiovascular en la República Argentina / Use of Lipid-Lowering Agents and Therapeutic Goal Achievement in Cardiovascular High-Risk Patients in Argentina

RESUMEN Introducción: Uno de los pilares fundamentales para la reducción del riesgo cardiovascular en pacientes en prevención secundaria es el correcto manejo del tratamiento hipolipemiante. Las estatinas en altas dosis, el ezetimibe, y más recientemente los inhibidores de PCSK9 (iPCSK9) son las principales herramientas farmacológicas con las que contamos para que estos pacientes cumplan metas terapéuticas de colesterol LDL (C-LDL). A pesar de la contundente evidencia a favor de estas terapéuticas, existe una gran subutilización de las mismas a nivel mundial, con bajos niveles de adherencia e inercia terapéutica. En Argentina existe escasa evidencia sobre la calidad del tratamiento hipolipemiante, y qué porcentaje de pacientes en prevención secundaria se encuentran con un perfil lipídico controlado acorde a guías nacionales e internacionales. Material y métodos: Diseñamos un estudio de corte transversal en pacientes en prevención secundaria de eventos cardiovasculares incluidos de forma prospectiva, consecutiva y multicéntrica en hospitales de la República Argentina que poseen sistema de Residencia Médica afiliados al Consejo Argentino de Residentes de Cardiología (CONAREC). Se realizó la recolección de datos durante los meses de marzo a agosto del año 2020. Se relevó el tratamiento hipolipemiante que recibían, los motivos detrás de la no utilización de estatinas en dosis adecuadas, y los valores de perfil lipídico en caso de contar con un registro en los últimos 6 meses previos a la inclusión. Resultados: Se incluyeron 1000 pacientes consecutivos de 24 centros, correspondientes a 11 provincias. Un 85,9% se encontraba bajo tratamiento con estatinas; un 4,8%, con ezetimibe; un 2,4% con fibratos; y un 13%, sin tratamiento. De aquellos pacientes en tratamiento con estatinas, un 67% recibía estatinas en altas dosis (58% del total de pacientes). Un total de 509 pacientes presentaban medición del C-LDL dentro de los últimos 6 meses. El valor promedio de C-LDL fue de 94 (90,6-97,8) mg/dL; el de C-LDL, 41 (40,7-42,6) mg/dL; y el de triglicéridos, 151 (142,9-159,8) mg/dL. Un 30% se encontraba con valores por debajo del corte de 70 mg/dL. Un 16% se encontraba con valores por debajo de 55 mg/dL. Un 37% de los pacientes presentaba C-LDL >100 mg/dL. Conclusiones: En este estudio multicéntrico de pacientes en prevención secundaria desarrollado en la República Argentina, poco más de la mitad presentaba tratamiento con estatinas en altas dosis, con una escasa utilización de ezetimibe. El subtratamiento se reflejó en los valores de C-LDL, con más de dos tercios de los pacientes fuera de rango terapéutico y, por lo tanto, lejos de las recomendaciones de las guías clínicas.

ABSTRACT Background: The correct management of lipid-lowering treatment is one of the key factors for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in secondary prevention patients. High-dose statins, ezetimibe, and more recently PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are the main tools available to meet LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) therapeutic goals in these patients. Despite the overwhelming evidence in their favor, these therapies are greatly underutilized worldwide, with low levels of adherence and therapeutic inertia. In Argentina, there is scarce evidence on the quality of lipid-lowering treatment and the rate of patients in secondary prevention with a controlled lipid profile according to national and international guidelines. Methods: A prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study including consecutive patients in secondary prevention for cardiovascular events from hospitals of Argentina with a Medical Residency system affiliated to CONAREC, was carried out from March to August 2020. Data was collected on the lipid-lowering treatment received, the reasons behind the non-use of statins in adequate doses and the lipid profile levels in case of having a record from the last 6 months prior to inclusion. Results: Among 1000 consecutive patients included from 24 centers corresponding to 11 provinces, 85.9% was treated with statins, 4.8% with ezetimibe, 2.4% with fibrates, and 13% was without treatment. In the case of patients treated with statin therapy, 67% was receiving high-dose statins (58% of the total number of patients). A total of 509 patients presented LDL-C assessment within the last 6 months. Mean LDL-C was 94 (90.6-97.8) mg/dl, HDL cholesterol 41 (40.7-42.6) mg/dl, and triglycerides 151 (142.9-159.8) mg/dl. In 30% of cases, LDL-C was below the cut-off value of 70 mg/dl and in 16% below 55 mg/ dl. In 37% of patients, LDL-C was >100 mg/dl. Conclusions: In this multicenter secondary prevention study performed in Argentina, just over half of the patients presented high-dose statin treatment, with scarce use of ezetimibe. Undertreatment was reflected in LDL-C values, with more than two-thirds of patients outside the therapeutic range, and therefore far from clinical guideline recommendations.

Does high sensitivity troponin add prognostic value to validated risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with acute heart failure?

Troponin elevation correlates with an increased short and long-term mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (AHF). However, it has not been included in the development of multiple validated predictive models of mortality. We aim to  determine whether the addition of high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) to clinical risk scores improves the prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with AHF. A retrospective analysis of a prospective and consecutive cohort was performed. Adult patients hospitalized between 2015 and 2019 with a primary diagnosis of AHF were included. Hs-TnT was measured on admission. OPTIMIZE-HF, GWTG-HF, and ADHERE risks score were calculated for each patient. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Discrimination of isolated hs-TnT and the risk scores with and without the addition of hs-TnT were evaluated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC). A subanalysis was performed according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Of 712 patients, 562 (79%) had hs-TnT measurement upon admission, and was elevated in 91%. In-hospital mortality was 8.7% (n = 49). The AUC-ROC was 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.77) for isolated hs-TnT, and 0.80 (0.74-0.87), 0.79 (0.72 -0.86) and 0.79 (0.71-0.86) for the OPTIMIZE-HF, GWTG-HF and ADHERE scores, respectively. The addition of hs-TnT to the models did not increase the AUC: 0.72 (0.66-0.79) for the OPTIMIZE-HF + hs-TnT score (difference between AUC - 0.08 p = 0.04), 0.74 (0.68-0.80) for GWTG-HF (difference between AUC-0.04, p = 0.2) and 0.7 (0.63-0.77) for ADHERE (difference between AUC - 0.085 p = 0.07). The models presented good calibration (p > 0.05). In the sub-analysis, no differences were found between risk scores with the addition of hs-TnT in the population with LVEF < 40% and ≥ 40%. Elevated hs-TnT on admission was frequent and its incorporation into the validated risk scores did not prove an incremental prognostic benefit in patients hospitalized for AHF, regardless of LVEF. Isolated hs-TnT had a modest ability to predict hospital mortality. Additional prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in Decompensated Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

Background and Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown may have collaterally affected the care of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We aimed to evaluate the impact of lockdown pandemic on hospitalizations for ADHF. Methods: We conducted a single-center study, performing a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. We included consecutive adult patients with a primary diagnosis of ADHF admitted to a cardiovascular disease specialized hospital. We compared those patients admitted between March-June of 2019 (before COVID-19 [BC]) and 2020 (after COVID-19 [AC]), during mandatory lockdown. Results: A total 79 corresponding to BC period and 60 to AC period were included, representing a decrease of 25% (interquartile range [IQR], 11-33). During the BC period, 31.6% of patients were referred from other centers compared to 15% during the pandemic (p=0.02). In the AC period patients were older (median age, 81[IQR, 73-87] years vs. 77 [IQR, 64-84] years, p=0.014). The etiology of HF, cause of decompensation, left ventricular function, and laboratory parameters were similar in both periods. The use of mechanical ventilation (13.9% vs. 3.3%, p=0.03) and circulatory support (7.6% vs. 0%, p=0.02) was higher in the BC period. During the BC period, 5 emergency heart transplants were performed, and none in AC, (p=0.004). In-hospital mortality was similar in both periods (3.8% vs. 3.3%; p=0.80). Conclusions: We observed a reduction in the number of hospitalizations and referral of patients for ADHF during COVID-19 pandemic.

Injuria miocárdica luego de cirugía no cardíaca / Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery

Resumen Las complicaciones cardiovasculares mayores en el postoperatorio son frecuentes y el principal factor contribuyente es la injuria miocárdica o infarto (MINS, Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery) asociado a cirugía no cardíaca. El riesgo de mortalidad a 30 días de los pacientes con injuria miocárdica es 4-5 veces mayor que los pacientes que no lo presentan. Se estima que 85% de los pacientes con MINS no presentan síntomas, por lo que la única manera de detectarlos es mediante screening sistemático de troponinas. Si bien no existen intervenciones de aplicación sistemática que permitan prevenir esta complicación, existen alternativas de tratamiento y manejo, por lo que la pesquisa activa es costo-efectiva y relevante desde el punto de visto clínico.

Major cardiovascular complications in the postoperative period are frequent and the main contributing factor is myocardial injury or infarction (MINS, Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery) associated with non-cardiac surgery. The 30-day mortality risk in patients with myocardial injury is 4-5 times higher than in patients without this complication. It is estimated that 85% of patients with MINS/infarction are asymptomatic, hence the only way to detect them is through systematic screening of troponins. Although there are no systematic interventions to prevent this complication, there are treatment and management alternatives, so the active early diagnosis is cost effective and relevant from a clinical point of view.

Enfermedad cardiovascular en tiempos de COVID-19 / Cardiovascular disease in times of COVID-19

Existen crecientes informes sobre una drástica caída en consultas y realización de procedimientos cardiovasculares (incluyendo urgencias y emergencias) en regiones afectadas por la pandemia de COVID-19, con el consecuente incremento marcado de la mortalidad total que no se explica totalmente por las defunciones atribuidas a COVID-19. En Argentina, la enfermedad cardiovascular lidera el ranking de muertes en adultos con 280 muertes por día, y en las últimas décadas hemos reducido su mortalidad entre 20 y 30% mediante diversas intervenciones basadas en la evidencia. En el presente trabajo realizamos análisis predictivos para entender cuáles podrían ser las consecuencias de una peor implementación de dichas intervenciones. Estimamos que un menor control de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular de abril a octubre de 2020 podría causar hasta 10 500 nuevos casos prevenibles de enfermedad cardiovascular. En términos de infarto de miocardio, una caída del 40% al 60% del tratamiento de reperfusión podría incrementar la mortalidad del 3% al 5%. Un incremento marginal de riesgo relativo de 10% a 15% de muerte cardiovascular equivaldría a un exceso de 6000 a 9000 muertes evitables. En conclusión, dada la alta prevalencia y fatalidad de la enfermedad cardiovascular, incluso un pequeño impacto negativo en la eficacia de su cuidado se traducirá en grandes cantidades de afectados en Argentina. Es necesario informar a las autoridades y educar al público para que sigan controlando enfermedades cardiovasculares y sus factores de riesgo, siempre que existan recursos y minimizando el riesgo de contagio y propagación del virus.

There are increasing reports of a drastic drop in consultations and cardiovascular procedures (including urgencies and emergencies) in regions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a consequent marked increase in total mortality that is not fully explained by COVID-19. Cardiovascular disease leads the ranking in deaths in adults in Argentina with 280 deaths per day, and in recent decades we have reduced its mortality by 20-30% through various evidence-based interventions. Herein we conducted predictive analyses to understand what could be the consequences of a worse implementation of those interventions. We estimate that less control of cardiovascular risk factors from April to October 2020 could cause up to 10 500 new preventable cases of cardiovascular disease. In terms of myocardial infarction, a drop from 40% to 60% of the reperfusion treatment could increase mortality by 3% to 5%. A marginal 10% to 15% increase in relative risk of cardiovascular death would be equivalent to an excess of 6000 to 9000 preventable deaths. In conclusion, given the high prevalence and fatality of cardiovascular disease, even a small negative impact on the efficacy of its care will translate into large numbers of people affected in Argentina. It is necessary to inform the authorities and educate the public so cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors remain a health priority, as long as resources exist and minimizing the risk of contagion and spread of the virus.

[Cardiovascular disease in times of COVID-19]. / Enfermedad cardiovascular en tiempos de COVID-19.

There are increasing reports of a drastic drop in consultations and cardiovascular procedures (including urgencies and emergencies) in regions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a consequent marked increase in total mortality that is not fully explained by COVID-19. Cardiovascular disease leads the ranking in deaths in adults in Argentina with 280 deaths per day, and in recent decades we have reduced its mortality by 20-30% through various evidence-based interventions. Herein we conducted predictive analyses to understand what could be the consequences of a worse implementation of those interventions. We estimate that less control of cardiovascular risk factors from April to October 2020 could cause up to 10 500 new preventable cases of cardiovascular disease. In terms of myocardial infarction, a drop from 40% to 60% of the reperfusion treatment could increase mortality by 3% to 5%. A marginal 10% to 15% increase in relative risk of cardiovascular death would be equivalent to an excess of 6000 to 9000 preventable deaths. In conclusion, given the high prevalence and fatality of cardiovascular disease, even a small negative impact on the efficacy of its care will translate into large numbers of people affected in Argentina. It is necessary to inform the authorities and educate the public so cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors remain a health priority, as long as resources exist and minimizing the risk of contagion and spread of the virus.

Existen crecientes informes sobre una drástica caída en consultas y realización de procedimientos cardiovasculares (incluyendo urgencias y emergencias) en regiones afectadas por la pandemia de COVID-19, con el consecuente incremento marcado de la mortalidad total que no se explica totalmente por las defunciones atribuidas a COVID-19. En Argentina, la enfermedad cardiovascular lidera el ranking de muertes en adultos con 280 muertes por día, y en las últimas décadas hemos reducido su mortalidad entre 20 y 30% mediante diversas intervenciones basadas en la evidencia. En el presente trabajo realizamos análisis predictivos para entender cuáles podrían ser las consecuencias de una peor implementación de dichas intervenciones. Estimamos que un menor control de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular de abril a octubre de 2020 podría causar hasta 10 500 nuevos casos prevenibles de enfermedad cardiovascular. En términos de infarto de miocardio, una caída del 40% al 60% del tratamiento de reperfusión podría incrementar la mortalidad del 3% al 5%. Un incremento marginal de riesgo relativo de 10% a 15% de muerte cardiovascular equivaldría a un exceso de 6000 a 9000 muertes evitables. En conclusión, dada la alta prevalencia y fatalidad de la enfermedad cardiovascular, incluso un pequeño impacto negativo en la eficacia de su cuidado se traducirá en grandes cantidades de afectados en Argentina. Es necesario informar a las autoridades y educar al público para que sigan controlando enfermedades cardiovasculares y sus factores de riesgo, siempre que existan recursos y minimizando el riesgo de contagio y propagación del virus.

¿La evidencia aportada por el estudio SPRINT es suficientemente sólida para sostener un umbral de presión arterial sistólica de 120 mmHg? / Is the evidence provided by the SPRINT trial solid enough to support a systolic blood pressure threshold of 120 mmHg?

No disponible

Improved identification of secondary hypertension: use of a systematic protocol.

BACKGROUND: The accurate identification and diagnosis of secondary hypertension is critical, especially while atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the industrialized world. Nevertheless, despite the existence of diagnostic tools, there are significant variations of the estimated prevalence of secondary hypertension, due to multiple etiologies and suboptimal recognition. This study demonstrates the results of using a systematic and protocolled approach to improve recognition of the presence of secondary hypertension. In the future, this questionnaire can be a quick and effective tool to unveil secondary hypertension in a broad array of clinical settings. METHODS: A total of 28,633 consecutive patients from January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2017 were diagnosed as having primary or secondary hypertension, utilizing the International Code of Diseases. Patients were located at the Center of Hypertension, Institute of Cardiology at Austral University Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina and were then further classified as having TRH, or non-resistant hypertension, to which a systematic protocol was employed in search for secondary hypertension. The confirmation of secondary hypertension was subsequently confirmed by diagnostic laboratory and imaging techniques in a hospital setting. RESULTS: A final population of 12,284 patients with treatment resistant hypertension (TRH) and non-treatment resistant hypertension (NTRH) were included in this study, where an etiology of secondary hypertension was identified in 50.9% and 36% of patients in each treatment group, respectively. Physicians used confirmatory laboratory testing and imaging of patients who were identified as having a cause for their secondary hypertension, with no significant differences in sex, age and body mass index (BMI) among study groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the prevalence and distribution of the causes of secondary hypertension using a systematic, protocolled approach, which revealed a higher percentage of secondary hypertension than previously reported. This tool may be used by healthcare providers to ensure the appropriate recognition of secondary causes of hypertension in a wider range of patients with high blood pressure beyond resistant hypertension, changing the diagnostic paradigm of this condition.

Dabigatran in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MANAGE): an international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) increases the risk of cardiovascular events and deaths, which anticoagulation therapy could prevent. Dabigatran prevents perioperative venous thromboembolism, but whether this drug can prevent a broader range of vascular complications in patients with MINS is unknown. The MANAGE trial assessed the potential of dabigatran to prevent major vascular complications among such patients. METHODS: In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients from 84 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 45 years, had undergone non-cardiac surgery, and were within 35 days of MINS. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive dabigatran 110 mg orally twice daily or matched placebo for a maximum of 2 years or until termination of the trial and, using a partial 2-by-2 factorial design, patients not taking a proton-pump inhibitor were also randomly assigned (1:1) to omeprazole 20 mg once daily, for which results will be reported elsewhere, or matched placebo to measure its effect on major upper gastrointestinal complications. Research personnel randomised patients through a central 24 h computerised randomisation system using block randomisation, stratified by centre. Patients, health-care providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of a major vascular complication, a composite of vascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-haemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The primary safety outcome was a composite of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01661101. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2013, and July 17, 2017, we randomly assigned 1754 patients to receive dabigatran (n=877) or placebo (n=877); 556 patients were also randomised in the omeprazole partial factorial component. Study drug was permanently discontinued in 401 (46%) of 877 patients allocated to dabigatran and 380 (43%) of 877 patients allocated to placebo. The composite primary efficacy outcome occurred in fewer patients randomised to dabigatran than placebo (97 [11%] of 877 patients assigned to dabigatran vs 133 [15%] of 877 patients assigned to placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·55-0·93; p=0·0115). The primary safety composite outcome occurred in 29 patients (3%) randomised to dabigatran and 31 patients (4%) randomised to placebo (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·55-1·53; p=0·76). INTERPRETATION: Among patients who had MINS, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily lowered the risk of major vascular complications, with no significant increase in major bleeding. Patients with MINS have a poor prognosis; dabigatran 110 mg twice daily has the potential to help many of the 8 million adults globally who have MINS to reduce their risk of a major vascular complication [corrected]. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim and Canadian Institutes of Health Research.