Search

Background: Among the different cardiovascular (CV) manifestations of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation (AF) in particular have recently received special attention. The aims of our study were to estimate the incidence of AF in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, and to evaluate its role as a possible predictor of in-hospital all-cause mortality. (2) Methods: We enrolled 3435 people with SARS-CoV2 infection admitted to three hospitals in Northern Italy from February 2020 to May 2021. We collected data on their clinical history, laboratory tests, pharmacological treatment and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Incident AF and all-cause in-hospital mortality were considered as outcomes. (3) Results: 145 (4.2%) patients developed AF during hospitalization, with a median time since admission of 3 days (I-III quartile: 0, 12). Patients with incident AF were admitted more frequently to the ICU (39.3 vs. 12.4%, p < 0.001), and more frequently died (37.2 vs. 16.9%, p < 0.001). In the Cox regression model, the significant determinants of incident AF were age (HR: 1.041; 95% CI: 1.022, 1.060 per year), a history of AF (HR: 2.720; 95% CI: 1.508, 4.907), lymphocyte count (HR: 0.584; 95% CI: 0.384, 0.888 per 103/µL), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, HR: 0.988; 95% CI: 0.980, 0.996 per mL/min) and ICU admission (HR: 5.311; 95% CI: 3.397, 8.302). Incident AF was a predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.405; 95% CI: 1.027, 1.992) along with age (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.047, 1.067), male gender (HR: 1.315; 95% CI: 1.064; 1.626), dementia (HR: 1.373; 95% CI: 1.045, 1.803), lower platelet (HR: 0.997; 95% CI: 0.996, 0.998 per 103/µL) and lymphocyte counts (HR: 0.843; 95% CI: 0.725, 0.982 per 103/µL), C-Reactive protein values (HR: 1.004; 95% CI: 1.003, 1.005 per mg/L), eGFR (HR: 0.990; 95% CI: 0.986, 0.994 per mL/min), and ICU admission (HR: 1.759; 95% CI: 1.292, 2.395). (4) Conclusions: Incident AF is a common complication in C

Purpose: Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) might be considered a valid alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for both the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Correct information on how to perform HBPM are crucial for its reliability. The aim of the present survey was to assess if hypertensive patients followed current recommendation on how to correctly perform HBPM measurements. Materials and methods: The survey included 30 different items on how to perform the HBPM. It was developed by the ‘Young Investigators’ group of the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension (SIIA) and it was administered during the office visit between May 2019 and December 2021. Results: A total of 643 hypertensive patients participated in the study. Main results show that, despite the rate of informed patients was relatively high (71% of the whole population), unacceptable number of patients did not follow indications on how to perform a correct HBPM. Patients who were informed on how to measure home BP had a significantly higher rate of correct position during measurement (78 vs. 22%, p < 0.01), avoidance of talking and moving during measurement (68 vs. 32%, p < 0.0001), and correct number and time interval between two measurements (85 vs. 15%, p < 0.001). More accurate measurements of home BP were associated with less prevalence of carotid plaque. Conclusions: Correct performance for HBPM is low among patients treated in Italian hypertension centers. These findings shed light on the importance of correct HBPM measurements for the detection of accurate BP values for the proper management of hypertensive patients.