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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Impact of significant paravalvular leaks after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on anaemia and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to assess the relationship between significant paravalvular leak (SPL) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on anaemia and their impact on prognosis. METHODS: Observational analytic study developed at two university hospitals, including all consecutive patients who underwent TAVI during a 10-year period (2009 to 2018). A logistic regression model was created to determine independent predictors of anaemia at 3 months. Time to event outcomes were analysed with Cox regression. Median follow-up was 21.3±21.9 months. RESULTS: 788 patients were included. 5.3% had SPL. SPL was an independent predictor of anaemia 3 months after TAVI (OR: 8.31, 95% CI: 2.06 to 33.50). SPL and anaemia at 3 months were independently associated with long-term mortality (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.85; HR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.08). CONCLUSION: SPL is an independent predictor of anaemia at 3 months after TAVI, a condition that doubles long-term mortality. Our findings could explain in part the worse prognosis of SPL after TAVI. Further pathophysiological studies are necessary to explain this association.

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

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

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