Search

Background: Age and comorbidities increase COVID-19 related in-hospital mortality risk, but the extent by which comorbidities mediate the impact of age remains unknown., Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study with data from 45 Dutch hospitals, 4806 proven COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Dutch hospitals (between February and July 2020) from the CAPACITY-COVID registry were included (age 69[58-77]years, 64% men). The primary outcome was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality or discharge with palliative care. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the associations between sex, age, and comorbidities with the primary outcome. The effect of comorbidities on the relation of age with the primary outcome was evaluated using mediation analysis., Results: In-hospital COVID-19 related mortality occurred in 1108 (23%) patients, 836 (76%) were aged ≥70 years (70+). Both age 70+ and female sex were univariably associated with outcome (odds ratio [OR]4.68, 95%confidence interval [4.02-5.45], OR0.68[0.59-0.79], respectively;both p<  0.001). All comorbidities were univariably associated with outcome (p<0.001), and all but dyslipidemia remained significant after adjustment for age70+ and sex. The impact of comorbidities was attenuated after age-spline adjustment, only leaving female sex, diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) significantly associated (female OR0.65[0.55-0.75], DM OR1.47[1.26-1.72], CKD OR1.61[1.32-1.97], COPD OR1.30[1.07-1.59]). Pre-existing comorbidities in older patients negligibly (<6% in all comorbidities) mediated the association between higher age and outcome., Conclusions: Age is the main determinant of COVID-19 related in-hospital mortality, with negligible mediation effect of pre-existing comorbidities., Trial Registration: CAPACITY-COVID ( NCT04325412 )., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of developing heart failure (HF). The "Heart OMics in AGEing" (HOMAGE) trial suggested that spironolactone had beneficial effect on fibrosis and cardiac remodelling in an at risk population, potentially slowing the progression towards HF. We compared the proteomic profile of patients with and without diabetes among patients at risk for HF in the HOMAGE trial., Methods: Protein biomarkers (n = 276) from the Olink®Proseek-Multiplex cardiovascular and inflammation panels were measured in plasma collected at baseline and 9 months (or last visit) from HOMAGE trial participants including 217 patients with, and 310 without, diabetes., Results: Twenty-one biomarkers were increased and five decreased in patients with diabetes compared to non-diabetics at baseline. The markers clustered mainly within inflammatory and proteolytic pathways, with granulin as the key-hub, as revealed by knowledge-induced network and subsequent gene enrichment analysis. Treatment with spironolactone in diabetic patients did not lead to large changes in biomarkers. The effects of spironolactone on NTproBNP, fibrosis biomarkers and echocardiographic measures of diastolic function were similar in patients with and without diabetes (all interaction analyses p > 0.05)., Conclusions: Amongst patients at risk for HF, those with diabetes have higher plasma concentrations of proteins involved in inflammation and proteolysis. Diabetes does not influence the effects of spironolactone on the proteomic profile, and spironolactone produced anti-fibrotic, anti-remodelling, blood pressure and natriuretic peptide lowering effects regardless of diabetes status.  Trial registration NCT02556450., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: An overview of the diagnostic performance of natriuretic peptides (NPs) for the detection of diastolic dysfunction (DD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in a non-acute setting, is currently lacking., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase.com (May 13, 2019). Studies were included when they (1) reported diagnostic performance measures, (2) are for the detection of DD or HFpEF in a non-acute setting, (3) are compared with a control group without DD or HFpEF or with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, (4) are in a cross-sectional design. Two investigators independently assessed risk of bias of the included studies according to the QUADAS-2 checklist. Results were meta-analysed when three or more studies reported a similar diagnostic measure., Results: From 11,728 titles/abstracts, we included 51 studies. The meta-analysis indicated a reasonable diagnostic performance for both NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF based on AUC values of approximately 0.80 (0.73-0.87; I 2  = 86%). For both NPs, sensitivity was lower than specificity for the detection of DD and HFpEF: approximately 65% (51-85%; I 2  = 95%) versus 80% (70-90%; I 2  = 97%), respectively. Both NPs have adequate ability to rule out DD: negative predictive value of approximately 85% (78-93%; I 2  = 95%). The ability of both NPs to prove DD is lower: positive predictive value of approximately 60% (30-90%; I 2  = 99%)., Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF is reasonable. However, they may be used to rule out DD or HFpEF, and not for the diagnosis of DD or HFpEF.