Search

Background and Objectives: Oral anticoagulants are the hallmark of cardioembolic stroke prevention, but they are frequently underused, especially in elderly patients and patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. In our paper, we analyzed the long-term outcome of severely disabled cardioembolic stroke survivors depending on the prescribed antithrombotic secondary prevention medication. Materials and Methods: In our study, we retrospectively collected data for ischemic stroke (IS) patients treated in P. Stradins Clinical University hospital, Riga, Latvia, from 2014 until 2017. Patients' clinical data were collected using local stroke registry, including patients' demographic data, vascular risk factors, clinical findings, and laboratory results. Severely disabled stroke survivors were followed up by phone at 30/90/180/365 days after discharge. Patients' functional outcomes were assessed using the adapted version of The Rankin Focused Assessment-Ambulation. The collected data were compared in 4 groups according to prescribed secondary prevention medication. Results: A total of 682 (91.42%) patients were followed up and included in data analysis. The median age of patients was 80 (IQR = 75-85) years. Of these patients, 231 (31%) were males and 515 (69%) were females. One-year probability of survival of patients not taking any preventive medication was 53% (IQR = 29-76), while in patients taking antiplatelet agents it was 57% (IQR = 37-78), 78% (IQR = 68-88) of patients on Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and 81% (IQR = 72-90) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). One year after discharge 73 (31%) had mRS 0-2, 50 (20.9%), 29 (12.1%) were still severely disabled, and 87 (36.4%) had died. Conclusions: Anticoagulant use in secondary prevention predicts better functional outcome and higher survival rate in patients with severe cardioembolic stroke due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), therefore severe neurological deficit must not be a reason of restriction of anticoagulation.

Background and Objectives : Over the last five decades cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) have become established as the mainstay for the treatment of permanent bradycardias, chronic heart failure and dangerous heart rhythm disturbances. These devices improve survival and quality of life in many patients. However, infections associated with CIED implantation, particularly lead-related infective endocarditis (LRIE), can offset all benefits and make more harm than good for the patient. To date, there are no other studies in Latvia, addressing patients with lead-related infective endocarditis. The objective of this study was to identify the most common pathogens associated with LRIE and their antimicrobial resistance and to identify possible risk factors of patients who present with LRIE. Materials and Methods: The study was performed retrospectively at Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital (PSCUH). The study included patients who were referred to PSCUH due to LRIE for lead extraction. Patients were identified from procedural journals. Information about isolated microorganisms, patient comorbidities and visual diagnostics data was taken from patient records. Results: Forty-nine patients with CIED related infective endocarditis were included in the study, 34 (69.4%) were male, median age of all patients was 65.0 (50.5-73.0) years, median hospital stay was 15.5 (22.0-30.5) days. Successful and complete lead extraction was achieved in all patients. Thirty-two (65.3%) had received antibiotics prior to blood sample. Only in 31 (63.3%) positive culture results were seen. The most common isolated pathogens were S taphylococcus aureus (23.5%) and coagulase negative staphylococci (23.5%). Other bacteria were isolated considerably less often. The atrial lead was most common location for lead vegetations, seen in 50.0% of cases. Five (10.2%) patients have died due to the disease. Conclusions: Lead-related infective endocarditis is a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices with considerable morbidity and mortality, which in our study was as high as 10.2%., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to evaluate blood pressure (BP) control level in treated hypertensive patients in Latvia and to compare their characteristics according to the adequacy of BP control. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Family physicians collected information on demographic and clinical characteristics, and current antihypertensive treatment of 455 18-80-year-old patients with essential arterial hypertension treated for 1 or more years. Target BP was defined as values of <140/90 mm Hg for patients with low or moderate cardiovascular risk and <135/85-125/75 mm Hg for patients with high or very high risk. BP was measured in the office setting after a 5-minute rest in a sitting position using a calibrated aneroid sphygmomanometer. RESULTS. Nearly half of patients (46.2%) attained their target BP. The proportion of patients with effective BP control was higher in the group of low and moderate added cardiovascular risk than in the high and very high added cardiovascular risk group (61.7% vs. 34.4%, P<0.0001). The majority of patients were given two-drug (26.2%) or three-drug (31.6%) combined antihypertensive therapy. Current pharmacological treatment was similar in the patients who attained target BP and in those who did not. Overall, physicians did not modify antihypertensive treatment in 37.9% of patients; such a recommendation was more common among patients with controlled BP. Very few patients (7.4%) who did not attain target BP did not receive recommendations to modify antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSIONS. The rate of effective BP control was less than 50% and was even worse (34.4%) in patients with high or very high added cardiovascular risk in the present sample of treated hypertensive patients.