Search

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., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: The purpose of this analysis was to assess the incidence, predictors and prognostic impact of acute heart failure (AHF) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using a self-expanding prosthesis., Methods: From November 2008 to June 2017, all consecutive patients undergoing TAVI in our center were prospectively included in our TAVI registry. The predictive effect of AHF on all-cause mortality following the TAVI procedure was analyzed using Cox regression models., Results: A total of 399 patients underwent TAVI with a mean age of 82.4 ± 5.8 years, of which 213 (53.4%) were women. During follow-up (27.0 ± 24.1 months), 29.8% (n = 119) were admitted due to AHF, which represents a cumulative incidence function of 13.2% (95%CI, 11.1%-15.8%). At the end of follow-up, 150 patients (37.59%) had died. Those who developed AHF showed a significantly higher mortality rate (52.1% vs 31.4%; HR, 1.84; 95%; CI, 1.14-2.97; P = .012). Independent predictors of AHF after TAVI were a past history of heart failure (P = .019) and high Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (P = .004). We found that nutritional risk index and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were strongly correlated with outcomes in the AHF group., Conclusions: TAVI was associated with a high incidence of clinical AHF. Those who developed AHF had higher mortality. Pre-TAVI AHF and high Society of Thoracic Surgeons score were the only independent predictors of AHF in our cohort. A low nutritional risk index and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independent markers of mortality in the AHF group., (Copyright © 2019 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: The optimal treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial. The aim of this study was to access the prognostic impact of multivessel PCI vs culprit vessel-only PCI in real-world patients with STEMI and multivessel disease., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1499 patients with STEMI diagnosis who underwent primary PCI between January 2008 and December 2015. About 40.8% (n=611) patients had multivessel disease. We performed a propensity score matched analysis to obtain 2 groups of 215 patients paired according to whether or not they had undergone multivessel PCI or culprit vessel-only PCI., Results: During follow-up (median, 2.36 years), after propensity score matching, patients who underwent multivessel PCI had lower rates of mortality (5.1% vs 11.6%; Peto-Peto P=.014), unplanned repeat revascularization (7.0% vs 12.6%; Peto-Peto P=.043) and major acute cardiovascular events (22.0% vs 30.8%; Peto-Peto P=.049). These patients also showed a trend to a lower incidence of myocardial infarction (4.2% vs 6.1%; Peto-Peto P=.360)., Conclusions: In real-world patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a multivessel PCI strategy was associated with lower rates of mortality, unplanned repeat revascularization, and major acute cardiovascular events., (Copyright © 2016 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: Little attention has been given to the effect of vascular access site on mortality, while an increasing body of evidence is showing that radial access has much more benefit than femoral access for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. We aimed to assess the influence of vascular access site on mortality at 30 days and at 1 year in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients., Methods: We included all patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who had undergone primary angioplasty at 2 Galician hospitals between 2008 and 2010. We performed 2 multivariate regression models for each endpoint (30-day and 1-year mortality). The only difference between these models was the inclusion or not of the vascular access site (femoral vs radial). For each of the 4 models we calculated the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the C-index. We also tested the interaction between hemodynamic instability and vascular access., Results: We included 1461 patients with a mean age of 64. Of these patients, 86% had radial access and 7.4% had hemodynamic instability. All-cause mortality was 6.8% (100/1461) at 30 days and 9.3% (136/1461) at 1 year. Vascular access site follows hemodynamic instability and age in terms of effect on mortality risk, with an odds ratio of 5.20 (95% confidence interval, 2.80-9.66) for 30-day mortality. A similar effect occurs for 1-year mortality. The C-index slightly improves (without achieving statistical significance) with the inclusion of the vascular access site., Conclusions: Vascular access site should be taken into account when predicting mortality after a primary percutaneous coronary intervention., (Copyright © 2013 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: There is little information on the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and porcelain aorta. The primary aim of this study was to analyze death from any cause after CoreValve(®) implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis, with and without porcelain aorta., Methods: In this multicenter, observational prospective study, carried out in 3 hospitals, percutaneous aortic valves were implanted in 449 patients with severely calcified aortic stenosis. Of these, 36 (8%) met the criteria for porcelain aorta. The primary end-point was death from any cause at 2 years., Results: Patients with porcelain aorta more frequently had extracardiac vascular disease (11 [30.6%] vs 49 [11.9%]; P=.002), prior coronary revascularization (15 [41.7%] vs 98 [23.7%]; P=.017), and dyslipidemia (26 [72.2%] vs 186 [45%]; P=.02). In these patients, there was greater use of general anesthesia (15 [41.7%] vs 111 [16.9%]; P=.058) and axillary access (9 [25%] vs 34 [8.2%]; P=.004). The success rate of the procedure (94.4 vs 97.3%; P=.28) and the incidence of complications (7 [19.4%] vs 48 [11.6%]; P=.20) were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary end point at 24 months of follow-up (8 [22.2%] vs 66 [16%]; P=.33). The only predictive variable for the primary end point was the presence of complications during implantation (hazard ratio=2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-4.5; P=.001)., Conclusions: In patients with aortic stenosis and porcelain aorta unsuitable for surgery, percutaneous implantation of the CoreValve(®) self-expanding valve prosthesis is safe and feasible., (Copyright © 2013 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: Percutaneous aortic valve implantation for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and a high surgical risk is currently well established. We report our experience in terms of safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in other clinical context like the degenerated aortic homografts., Methods: We report our initial experience in four hospitals and five patients with degenerated aortic homograft and severe aortic regurgitation, refused for surgery for a heart team, that underwent percutaneous implantation of CoreValve(®) aortic prosthesis., Results: We included three males and two females. The mean age was 70 (3.5) years. All patients were symptomatic in New York Heart Association class III or IV. Procedures were performed through one of the femoral arteries in all patients and under sedation in three patients. The implant was successfully carried out in all cases. There were no major complications during the procedure or admission and the valvular defect was solved in all cases. In-hospital and 30-days mortality was 0. All patients had clinical improvement during follow-up with a reduction in at less two grades in the New York Heart Association functional scale., Conclusions: In our experience the treatment of degenerated aortic homografts and aortic insufficiency with transcatheter aortic valve implantation showed to be safe and effective. The current challenge is to convey the good results of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in symptomatic aortic stenosis and high surgical risk to others disorders of the aortic valve. In the future, it is possible that transcatheter aortic valve implantation will expand its indications to majority of aortic valve disorders and patients with less surgical risk., (Copyright © 2011 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)