Prognostic impact of renal function trajectories in patients with STEMI and kidney dysfunction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis of ten years all-comers registry.

BACKGROUND: Renal dysfunction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) indicates a poor long-term prognosis. However, the prognostic value of the improvement or stabilisation of renal function during follow-up has not yet been assessed. This study aimed to investigate the long-term predictive impact of the improvement or stabilisation of renal function after one year of follow-up in patients with STEMI undergoing pPCI with renal dysfunction at discharge. METHODS: This prospective, single-centre cohort study included 2170 consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent pPCI. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was determined at hospital discharge and one-year follow-up. The median clinical follow-up was 72 months. RESULTS: Among the 2004 patients, 393 (19.6%) had a GFR <60 ml/min, and 1611 (80.4%) had a GFR ≥ 60 ml/min at discharge. Among patients with GFR <60 ml/min, data at one-year follow-up were available for 342. Of these patients, 127 (32%) showed improvement in renal function (defined as improvement in the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification), 47 (12%) showed worsening of renal function (defined as worsening of the KDIGO CKD classification), and 168 (43%) showed no category changes. Improvement or stabilisation of GFR at one year of follow-up was associated with a reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75, p = 0.001] and all-cause mortality [HR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84, p = 0.007] during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement or stabilisation of renal function at one-year follow-up in patients with STEMI and renal dysfunction is associated with a better long-term prognosis.

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.

Differences Between Takotsubo and the Working Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries.

Aim: Whether Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) should be classified within myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCAs) is still controversial. The aim of this work was to evaluate the main differences between TTS and non-TTS MINOCAs. Methods and Results: A cohort study based on two prospective registries: TTS from the RETAKO registry (N:1,015) and patients with non-TTS MINOCAs from contemporary records of acute myocardial infarction from five 5 national centers (N:1,080). Definitions and management recommended by the ESC were used. Survival analysis was based on the Cox regression analysis; propensity score matching (PS) was created to adjust prognostic variables. Takotsubo syndrome were more often women (85.9 vs. 51.9%; p < 0.001) and older (69.4 ± 12.5 vs. 64.5 ± 14.1 years; p < 0.001). Atrial fibrillation (AF) was more frequent in non-TTS MINOCAs (10.4 vs. 14.4%; p = 0.007). Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent in TTS (15.5 vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality and complications were higher in TTS: 3.4 vs. 1.8%, (p = 0.015), and 25.8 vs. 11.5%, (p < 0.001). Global mortality before PS matching was 16.1% in non-TTS MINOCAs and 8.1% in TTS. Median follow-up was 32.4 months; after PS matching, TTS had fewer major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs): hazard ratio (HR) 0.59; 95% CI 0.42-0.83. There were no differences in global mortality (HR 0.87; CI: 0.64-1.19), but TTS had lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.58; CI: 0.35-0.98). Conclusion: Compared to the rest of MINOCAs, TTS presents a different patient profile and a more aggressive acute phase. However, its long-term cardiovascular prognosis is better. These results support that TTS should be considered a separate entity with unique characteristics and prognosis.

Chronic use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis / Uso crónico de los inhibidores del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona en pacientes con COVID-19 e hipertensión arterial: Resultados de un registro español y metaanálisis

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. (AU)

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. (AU)

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate. AIMS: Our aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities) from 18 centres undergoing either TAVR (n=860) or biological SAVR (n=696) for severe AS was performed. Propensity score matching resulted in 362 pairs. RESULTS: After matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737). CONCLUSIONS: SAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.

Rationale and design of the Dapagliflozin after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (DapaTAVI) randomized trial.

AIMS: Despite aortic stenosis (AS) relief, patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at increased risk of developing heart failure (HF) within first months of intervention. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization in individuals with diabetes mellitus, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and chronic kidney disease. However, the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on outcomes after TAVI is unknown. The Dapagliflozin after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (DapaTAVI) trial is designed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of the SGLT-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: DapaTAVI is an independent pragmatic, controlled, prospective, randomized, open-label blinded endpoint, multicentre trial conducted in Spain, evaluating the effect of dapagliflozin 10 mg/day on the risk of death and worsening HF in patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI. Candidate patients should have prior history of HF admission plus ≥1 of the following criteria: (i) diabetes mellitus, (ii) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, or (iii) estimated glomerular filtration rate between 25 and 75 ml/min/1.73 m2 . A total of 1020 patients will be randomized (1:1) to dapagliflozin vs. no dapagliflozin. Key secondary outcomes include: (i) incidence rate of individual components of the primary outcome; (ii) cardiovascular mortality; (iii) the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; and (iv) total number of HF rehospitalizations. CONCLUSION: DapaTAVI will determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in a broad spectrum of frail patients after AS relief by TAVI.

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.

Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR.

BACKGROUND: The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P = 0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785.).

Prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction recovery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis of an 11-year all-comers registry.

AIMS: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) identifies a group of patients with a better prognosis. However, the association between long-term outcomes and LVEF recovery among patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been well investigated. Our study aims to detect differences in long-term all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between patients who recover LVEF at 1-year post-PCI and those who do not, and search for predictors of LVEF recovery. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective, single-centre study of 2170 consecutive patients admitted for STEMI in which primary PCI is performed. LVEF was determined at admission and at 1-year follow-up. The primary outcomes were long-term all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Among the 2168 patients with baseline LVEF data, 822 (38%) had a LVEF < 50% and 1346 (62%) ≥ 50%. Among those with LVEF < 50%, LVEF data at 1-year were available in 554, and 299 (54.0%) presented with complete recovery (LVEF ≥ 50%). LVEF recovery was associated with a reduction in long-term all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.0001). Female sex, treatment with ACEIs, lower creatinine levels, infarct-related artery different from the left main or left anterior descendent artery, and absence of prior ischaemic heart disease were independently associated with LVEF recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 40% of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI presented with LVEF depression at hospital admission. Among them, LVEF recovery at 1-year occurred in more than 50% and was independently associated with a significant decrease in long-term all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

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.

Cutaneous Polymer-Coating Embolism After Endovascular Procedures: Report of Two Cases and a Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: Different hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymers are used as lubricious coatings to reduce vascular traumas in minimally invasive percutaneous procedures. Although they are usually very safe, there is still a risk of serious complications in patients undergoing such procedures, mostly derived from the devices' coating detachment and systemic embolization. The lungs are the most common organ involved, followed by the central nervous system. Yet, cutaneous embolization is unusual, and only 19 cases are available in the literature. Most commonly, they present as asymptomatic retiform purpura on the lower legs, which tends to involve spontaneously. Correct clinical diagnosis is not suspected in most cases, being cholesterol emboly or vasculitis the preferred options. Time interval since surgical procedure and appearance of lesions vary widely but they generally start in the first few days. Histopathological identification of the embolus as bluish, amorphous intraluminal material in dermal vessels is diagnostic, but vasculitic signs are not present. We report 2 cases of skin lesions as the main manifestation of polymer embolization after endovascular surgical procedures. In both cases, biopsy allowed identification of embolized foreign material and lesions resolved without specific treatment.

Prognostic Impact of Change in Nutritional Risk on Mortality and Heart Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding change in the nutritional status after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study evaluated the prognostic impact of the change in the geriatric nutritional risk index following TAVR. METHODS: TAVR patients were analyzed in a prospective and observational study. To analyze the change in nutritional status, geriatric nutritional risk index of the patients was calculated on the day of TAVR and at 3-month follow-up. The impact of the change in nutritional risk index after TAVR on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HF-h), and the composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization was analyzed using the Cox Proportional Hazards model. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three patients were included. After TAVR, 68.4% (n=182) patients with baseline nutritional risk improved compared with 31.6% (n=84) who remained at nutritional risk. The change from no-nutritional risk to nutritional risk after TAVR occurred in 15.0% (n=25), while 85.0% (n=142) remained without risk of malnutrition. During follow-up, 157 (36.3%) patients died and 172 patients (39.7%) were hospitalized due to HF. Patients who continued to be at nutritional risk had a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10 [95% CI, 1.30-3.39], P=0.002), HF-h (HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.26-3.06], P=0.000), and the composite of death and HF-h (HR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.37-2.91], P<0.001). The change to non-nutritional risk after TAVR significantly impacted mortality (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30-0.78], P=0.003), HF-h (HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.34-0.74], P=0.001), and the composite outcome (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.62], P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Remaining at nutritional risk after TAVR confers a poor prognosis and is associated with an increased risk of mortality and HF-h, while the change from risk of malnutrition to non-nutritional risk after TAVR was associated with a halving of the risk of mortality and HF-h. Further studies are needed to identify whether patients at nutritional risk would benefit from nutritional intervention during processes of care of TAVR programs.

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)

Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization After TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and causes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at different time periods following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis frequently coexist, but the optimal management of CAD following TAVR remains incompletely elucidated. METHODS: Patients undergoing unplanned PCI after TAVR were retrospectively included in an international multicenter registry. RESULTS: Between July 2008 and March 2019, a total of 133 patients (0.9%; from a total cohort of 15,325) underwent unplanned PCI after TAVR (36.1% after balloon-expandable bioprosthesis, 63.9% after self-expandable bioprosthesis). The median time to PCI was 191 days (interquartile range: 59 to 480 days). The daily incidence of PCI was highest during the first week after TAVR and then declined over time. Overall, the majority of patients underwent PCI due to an acute coronary syndrome, and specifically 32.3% had non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 15.4% had unstable angina, 9.8% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 2.2% had cardiac arrest. However, chronic coronary syndromes are the main indication beyond 2 years. PCI success was reported in almost all cases (96.6%), with no significant differences between patients treated with balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses (100% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.150). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned PCI after TAVR is rare, with an incidence declining over time after TAVR. The main indication to PCI is acute coronary syndrome in the first 2 years after TAVR, and thereafter chronic coronary syndromes become prevalent. Unplanned PCIs are frequently successfully performed after TAVR, with no apparent differences between balloon-expandable and self-expandable bioprostheses. (Revascularization After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [REVIVAL]; NCT03283501).

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.