Impact of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment on the development of arrhythmias in patients with implantable cardiac devices.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been associated with improved prognosis in patients with heart failure, but their impact on atrial arrhythmic (AA) and ventricular arrhythmic (VA) events is not fully understood. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators who initiated treatment with SGLT2i. AA and VA events were compared in 2 time periods for each patient: 1 year before and 1 year after starting SGLT2i. RESULTS: The study included 195 patients (66.8 [61.3-73.1] years, 18.5% women). In the post-SGLT2i period, there was a reduction in the percentage of patients with any VA (pre: 52.3% vs post: 30.3%; P<.001) and clinically relevant VA (excluding nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) (pre: 21.5% vs post: 8.7%; P<.001). There was also a decrease in the number of episodes per patient/y of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (pre: 2 (1-5) vs post: 1 (0-2); P<.001) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (pre: 1 (1-3) vs post: 0 (0-2); P=0.046). However, no differences were observed in the prevalence of AA (24.7% vs 18.8%; P=.117) or the burden of atrial fibrillation (pre: 0% (0-0.1) vs post: 0% (0-0); P=.097). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of SGLT2i treatment was associated with a decrease in the percentage of patients with relevant VA but this effect was not observed for AA.

Role of Soluble ST2 Biomarker in Predicting Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation after Electrical Cardioversion or Pulmonary Vein Isolation.

This study aims to determine the predictive value of the soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) biomarker in atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. This prospective, observational study included patients with AF referred for electrical cardioversion (ECV) or pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) procedures. Baseline characteristics were collected, and sST2 was determined at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. sST2 was determined at baseline in a matched control group. Left atrial voltage mapping was performed in patients undergoing PVI. The sST2 maximal predictive capacity of AF recurrence was at the 3-month FU in the cohort of patients undergoing ECV with respect to 6-month AF recurrence with an AUC of 0.669, a cut-off point of 15,511 pg/mL, a sensitivity of 60.97%, and a specificity of 69.81%. The ROC curve of the sST2 biomarker at baseline and 3 months in the cohort of patients undergoing PVI showed AUCs of 0.539 and 0.490, respectively. The logistic regression model identified the rhythm (AF) and the sST2 biomarker at 3 months as independent factors for recurrence at 6 months in the ECV cohort. In the logistic regression model, sST2 was not an independent factor for recurrence at 6 months of follow-up in the PVI cohort. In patients who underwent ECV, sST2 values at 3 months may provide utility to predict AF recurrence at 6 months of follow-up. In patients who underwent PVI, sST2 had no value in predicting AF recurrence at 6 months of follow-up.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: a prospective multicentre study.

AIMS: This study aims to investigate the clinical and biochemical characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) referred for ablation who develop arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM) as well as their long-term outcomes after catheter ablation (CA). METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective multicentre study was conducted on consecutive AF patients who underwent CA. AiCM was defined as the development of heart failure in the presence of AF and an improvement of left ventricular fraction by at least 10% at 6 months after ablation. A subgroup of patients underwent peripheral and left atrial blood samples [galectin-3, fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4), and soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products (sRAGE)] at the time of the procedure. Of the 769 patients who underwent AF ablation, 135 (17.56%) met the criteria for AiCM. Independent predictors of AiCM included persistent AF, male gender, left atrial volume, QRS width, active smoking, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Biomarker analysis revealed that sRAGE, FABP4, and galectin-3 levels were not predictive of AiCM development nor did they differ between groups or predict recurrence. There were no differences in AF recurrence between patients with and without AiCM (30.83% vs. 27.77%; P = 0.392) during a median follow-up of 23.83 months (inter-quartile range 9-36). CONCLUSIONS: In the subset of patients referred for AF ablation, the development of AiCM was associated with persistent AF and CKD. Biomarker analysis was not different between groups nor predicted recurrence. Patients with AiCM benefited from ablation, with a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and similar AF recurrence rates to those without AiCM.

Efectos del tratamiento médico guiado en pacientes con miocardiopatía inducida por bloqueo de rama izquierda / Effects of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy

Introducción y objetivos La miocardiopatía inducida por el bloqueo de rama izquierda (BRI) se produce en pacientes con BRI de larga duración. Es característico que muestren hiperrespuesta a las terapias de resincronización cardiaca (TRC). Sin embargo, existe poca información sobre su respuesta al tratamiento médico. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar el cambio en la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) después de un periodo de 3 meses tras la dosificación del tratamiento médico recomendado por la guía de insuficiencia cardiaca. Métodos Se trata de un análisis retrospectivo, en el que se incluyó a todos los pacientes valorados en la unidad de insuficiencia cardiaca de un hospital universitario español entre 2020 y 2021, que presentaban disfunción ventricular de novo (FEVI <40%) y tenían antecedentes de BRI de larga evolución sin otras posibles causas de miocardiopatía. Resultados Se analizó a un total de 1.497 pacientes, de los que resultaron elegibles 21. El tiempo medio desde el primer diagnóstico de BRI a la primera consulta fue de 4,05±4,1 años. La FEVI media desde la primera consulta hasta el final de la dosificación mejoró del 29,5±5,7% al 32,7±8,6% (p=0,172); ninguno recuperó la función ventricular al final del seguimiento. La clase funcional de la New York Heart Association mejoró de 1,91±0,46 a 1,81±0,53 (p=0,542). Tras el implante del dispositivo de TRC en 8 pacientes, la FEVI mejoró un 18,1±6,4% (p=0,003). Conclusiones El tratamiento médico recomendado por la guía parece ser ineficaz para mejorar la FEVI y la clase funcional en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca de novo y miocardiopatía inducida por BRI. Basándose en la respuesta positiva a la TRC en la mejora de la FEVI, el implante temprano de TRC podría ser una estrategia razonable para estos pacientes (AU)

Introduction and objectives Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced cardiomyopathy occurs in patients with long-standing LBBB. These patients characteristically exhibit hyperresponsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapies (CRT). However, there is scarce information on their response to medical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after a 3-month period following titration of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. Methods This retrospective analysis included all patients assessed in the heart failure unit of a Spanish University Hospital between 2020 and 2021, who presented with de novo ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <40%) and had a history of long-standing LBBB with no other possible causes of cardiomyopathy. Results A total of 1497 patients were analyzed, of which 21 were finally eligible. Mean time from first diagnosis of LBBB to first consultation was 4.05± 4.1 years. Mean LVEF from first consultation to end of titration improved from 29.5±5.7% to 32.7±8.6% (P = .172), but none had recovered ventricular function at the end of follow-up. New York Heart Association functional class improved from 1.91±0.46 to 1.81±0.53 (P=.542). After CRT device implantation in 8 patients, LVEF improved by 18.1±6.4% (P=.003). Conclusions Guideline-directed medical therapy seems to be ineffective in improving LVEF and functional class in patients with de novo heart failure and LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy. Based on a positive response to CRT on LVEF improvement, early CRT implantation could be a reasonable strategy for these patients (AU)

Effects of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced cardiomyopathy occurs in patients with long-standing LBBB. These patients characteristically exhibit hyperresponsiveness to cardiac resynchronization therapies (CRT). However, there is scarce information on their response to medical treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after a 3-month period following titration of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included all patients assessed in the heart failure unit of a Spanish University Hospital between 2020 and 2021, who presented with de novo ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <40%) and had a history of long-standing LBBB with no other possible causes of cardiomyopathy. RESULTS: A total of 1497 patients were analyzed, of which 21 were finally eligible. Mean time from first diagnosis of LBBB to first consultation was 4.05± 4.1 years. Mean LVEF from first consultation to end of titration improved from 29.5±5.7% to 32.7±8.6% (P = .172), but none had recovered ventricular function at the end of follow-up. New York Heart Association functional class improved from 1.91±0.46 to 1.81±0.53 (P=.542). After CRT device implantation in 8 patients, LVEF improved by 18.1±6.4% (P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-directed medical therapy seems to be ineffective in improving LVEF and functional class in patients with de novo heart failure and LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy. Based on a positive response to CRT on LVEF improvement, early CRT implantation could be a reasonable strategy for these patients.

The Role of Fatty Acid-Binding Protein 4 in the Characterization of Atrial Fibrillation and the Prediction of Outcomes after Catheter Ablation.

Aims: The utility of biomarkers in characterizing atrial cardiomyopathy is unclear. We aim to test the ability of biomarkers of fibrosis (galectin-3 (Gal-3)) and adiposity (fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4) and leptin) to predict: (1) the presence of low-voltage areas (LVA) in the electroanatomic voltage mapping; and (2) the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods: Patients referred for PVI were enrolled. Areas of bipolar voltage < 0.5 mV were considered as LVA. An aggregate score incorporating AF pattern (paroxysmal, persistent and long-standing persistent) and peripheral levels of FABP4 (>20 ng/mL) was developed. Results: 299 patients were included. AF was paroxysmal in 100 (33%), persistent in 130 (43%) and long-standing persistent in 69 (23%). Multivariable analysis revealed age, left atrium area, and the proposed score as independent predictors of LVA. During a mean follow-up period of 972 ± 451 days, freedom from AF recurrence was 63%. The score incorporating AF pattern and FABP4 levels accurately predicted freedom from AF recurrence, stratifying risk into ranges from 28% (score of 1) to 68% (score of 3). Cox regression models identified the score including AF pattern + FABP4 as the best model for AF recurrence (hazard ratio 2.32; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.5; p = 0.014). Conclusions: Traditional clinical classification of atrial cardiomyopathy may be improved by markers of adiposity (FABP4). The combination allows better prediction of the presence of LVA and AF recurrence post-PVI. Gal-3 provided no added predictive value.

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.

Early angiography in elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: The cardio CHUS-HUSJ registry.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), while routine invasive management is established in high-risk NSTEACS patients, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of the procedure. METHODS: This study analyzes the association of early coronary angiography with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients older than 75 years old with NSTEACS. This retrospective observational study included 7811 consecutive NSTEACS patients who were examined between the years 2003 and 2017 at two Spanish university hospitals. There were 2290 patients older than 75 years old. We compared their baseline characteristics according to the early invasive strategy used (coronarography ≤24 h vs. coronarography >24 h) after the diagnosis of NSTEACS. RESULTS: Among the study participants, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. The mean follow-up period was 46 months (interquartile range 18-71 months). This association was also maintained after propensity score matching: early invasive strategy was significantly related to lower all-cause mortality [HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (CI 95% 0.54-0.71)]. CONCUSIONS: In a contemporary real-world registry of elderly NSTEACS patients, early invasive management significantly reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE during long-term follow-up. BRIEF SUMMARY: In this real-world retrospective observational study that included 2451 patients older than 75 years old, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. After performing a propensity score matching, the early invasive strategy was still associated with lower all-cause mortality [HR (hazard ratio) 0.61, 95% CI (95% confidence interval) (0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (95%CI 0.54-0.71)] during long-term follow-up.

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.

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.

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.

Prognostic benefit from an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS): evaluation of the new risk stratification in the NSTEACS European guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of our work is to evaluate the prognostic benefit of an early invasive strategy in patients with high-risk NSTACS according to the recommendations of the 2020 clinical practice guidelines during long-term follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 6454 consecutive NSTEACS patients. We analyze the effects of early coronary angiography (< 24 h) in patients with: (a) GRACE risk score > 140 and (b) patients with "established NSTEMI" (non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction defined by an increase in troponins) or dynamic ST-T-segment changes with a GRACE risk score < 140. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2017, 6454 patients with "new high-risk NSTEACS" were admitted, and 6031 (93.45%) of these underwent coronary angiography. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, the long-term cumulative probability of being free of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MACE differed significantly due to an early coronary intervention in patients with NSTEACS and GRACE > 140 [HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.57-0.67), HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.56-0.68), HR 0.57 (IC 95% 0.53-0.61), respectively]. In patients with NSTEACS and GRACE < 140 with established NSTEMI or ST/T-segment changes, the benefit of the early invasive strategy is only observed in the reduction of MACE [HR 0.62 (IC 95% 0.56-0.68)], but not for total mortality [HR 0.96 (IC 95% 0.78-1.2)] and cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.96 (IC 95% 0.75-1.24)]. CONCLUSIONS: An early invasive management is associated with reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and MACE in NSTEACS with high GRACE risk score. However, this benefit is less evident in the subgroup of patients with a GRACE score < 140 with established NSTEMI or ST/T-segment changes.

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)