Search

La infección por SARS-CoV-2, denominada COVID-19 (Coronavirus Infectious Disease-19), es una enfermedad desconocida hasta diciembre de 2019 a la que nos enfrentamos en España desde el 31 de enero de 2020 —fecha del primer caso diagnosticado en nuestro país— y que ya ha causado la muerte de 7.340 personas (a 30 de marzo de 2020), sobre todo mayores. Es importante tener en cuenta que, dado que la información evoluciona con extremada rapidez en este campo, lo expuesto en el presente documento puede estar sujeto a modificaciones. La población de mayor edad es especialmente susceptible a la infección por COVID-19, así como a desarrollar criterios de gravedad. Este aumento de morbimortalidad en el paciente mayor se ha asociado tanto con las comorbilidades, especialmente la enfermedad cardiovascular, como con la situación de fragilidad, que conlleva una respuesta inmunológica más pobre. La situación actual, tanto por los países afectados como por el número de casos, constituye una pandemia y supone una emergencia sanitaria de primer nivel. Como España es uno de los países más envejecidos del mundo, la COVID-19 se ha convertido en una emergencia geriátrica. El presente documento se ha elaborado conjuntamente entre la Sección de Cardiología Geriátrica de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología y la Sociedad Española de Geriatría y Gerontología. Sin financiación 4.753 JCR (2020) Q2, 45/142 Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems 0.455 SJR (2020) Q3, 202/349 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine No data IDR 2020 UEM

Introduction and objectives There is little evidence on rates of stent thrombosis (ST) in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor or prasugrel . The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence and predictors of ST after an acute coronary syndrome among patients receiving DAPT with ticagrelor vs prasugrel. Methods We used data from the RENAMI registry (REgistry of New Antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute Myocardial Infarction), analyzing a total of 4123 acute coronary syndrome patients discharged with DAPT with ticagrelor or prasugrel in 11 centers in 6 European countries. The endpoint was definite ST within the first year. A competitive risk analysis was carried out using a Fine and Gray regression model, with death being the competitive event. Results A total of 2604 patients received DAPT with ticagrelor and 1519 with prasugrel; ST occurred in 41 patients (1.10%), with a similar cumulative incidence between ticagrelor (1.21%) and prasugrel (0.90%). The independent predictors of ST were age (sHR, 1.03; 95% C I, 1.01-1.06), ST segment elevation (sHR, 2.24; 95%CI, 1.22-4.14), previous myocardial infarction (sHR, 2.56; 95%CI, 1.19-5.49), and serum creatinine (sHR, 1.29; 95%CI, 1.08-1.54). Conclusions Stent thrombosis is infrequent in patients receiving DAPT with ticagrelor or prasugrel. The variables associated with an increased risk of ST were advanced age, ST segment elevation, previous myocardial infarction, and serum creatinine.

Frailty is an age-associated clinical syndrome characterized by a decrease in physiological reserve in situations of stress, constituting a state of vulnerability that involves a higher risk of adverse events. Its prevalence in Spain is high, especially in elderly individuals with comorbidity and chronic diseases. In cardiovascular disease, frailty is associated worse clinical outcomes and higher morbidity and mortality in all scenarios, in both acute and chronic settings, and could consequently influence diagnosis and treatment. However, frailty is often not addressed or included when planning the management of elderly patients with heart disease. In this article, we review the available scientific evidence and highlight the most appropriate scales for the measurement and assessment of frailty, some of which are more useful and have better predictive capacity than others, depending on the clinical context. We also underline the importance of properly identifying and assessing frailty in order to include it in the treatment and care plan that best suits each patient. La fragilidad es un síndrome clínico que ocurre durante el envejecimiento, que se caracteriza por una disminución de la reserva fisiológica ante una situación de estrés y constituye un estado de vulnerabilidad que conlleva mayor riesgo de un resultado adverso. Su prevalencia en España es alta, especialmente en ancianos con comorbilidad y enfermedades crónicas. En el caso de la enfermedad cardiovascular, la fragilidad determina peores resultados clínicos, con mayor morbimortalidad en todos los escenarios, agudos y crónicos; por lo tanto, puede condicionar el diagnóstico y el tratamiento de los pacientes. A pesar de todo ello, se trata de un problema que con frecuencia no se aborda ni se incluye al planificar la atención al paciente mayor con cardiopatía. En este trabajo se repasa la evidencia científica disponible y se destacan las escalas más adecuadas para la medición y la valoración de la fragilidad, algunas con mayor utilidad y mejor capacidad predictiva según el contexto clínico en que se apliquen, y se resalta también la importancia de evaluarla para identificar su presencia e incluirla en el plan individualizado de tratamiento y cuidados que mejor se adapte a cada paciente. Sin financiación 4.642 JCR (2019) Q1, 30/138 Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems 0.473 SJR (2019) Q3, 196/362 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine No data IDR 2019 UEM

Introduction and objectives Recently, a new electrocardiography algorithm has shown promising results for the the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB). We aimed to assess these new electrocardiography rules in a cohort of patients referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Methods Retrospective observational cohort study that included all patients with suspected myocardial infarction and LBBB on the presenting electrocardiogram, referred for pPCI to 4 tertiary hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. Results A total of 145 patients were included. Fifty four (37%) had an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) equivalent. Among patients with STEMI, 25 (46%) presented in Killip class III or IV, and in-hospital mortality was 15%. Smith I and II rules performed better than Sgarbossa algorithms and showed good specificity (90% and 97%, respectively) but their sensitivity was 67% and 54%, respectively. In a strategy guided by Smith I or Smith II rules, 18 (33%) or 25 (46%) patients with STEMI would have not received a pPCI, respectively. Moreover, the severity and prognosis of STEMI patients was similar regardless of the positivity of Smith rules. Cardiac biomarkers were positive in 54% of non-STEMI patients, limiting their usefulness for initial diagnostic screening. Conclusions Diagnosis of STEMI in the presence of LBBB remains a challenge. Smith rules can be useful but are limited by suboptimal sensitivity. The search for new electrocardiography algorithms should be encouraged to avoid unnecessary aggressive treatments in the majority of patients, while providing timely reperfusion to a high-risk subgroup of patients.

Manuel Martinez-Selles,* Jose Luis Lambert Rodriguez, Vivencio Barrios, Pablo Diez-Villanueva, Jose Manuel Garcia Pinilla, Juan Cosin, Albert Ariza Sole, Sonia Mirabet Perez, Carlos Escobar, Oscar Diaz-Castro, Javier Segovia Cubero, and Jose Angel Rodriguez a Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Maranon, Universidad Europea y Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain b Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain c Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain d Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain e Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Malaga, Spain f Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia, Spain g Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain h Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain i Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain j Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Spain k Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain l Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Juan Canalejo, A Coruna, Spain