Search

The purpose of this review is to describe the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on the cardiovascular outcomes and prognosis in patients with Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy (TTC). The pathophysiological basis of TTC is set on the release of catecholamines, occurring post an emotional or stressful event. The cardiovascular system of patients with TTC is affected by the high concentrations of catecholamines, creating the ideal background for the development of AF: inflammation, myocardial stress, and excessive sympathetic activity. AF is considered to be the most frequent arrhythmia in TTC patients and is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. AF is also linked with a worse prognosis concerning the hemodynamic status, cardiac fibrosis, lethal arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, and adverse heart failure associated outcomes. The early diagnosis of AF in these patients plays significant role in the prevention of adverse events, the reversibility of left ventricular function, and the restoration of sinus rhythm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke is aleading cause of death and disability, with atrial fibrillation (AF) being among key risk factors and AF-related stroke inflicting significant burden on healthcare systems and society. The present study was undertaken for estimating the total annual socioeconomic burden of AF-related stroke in Greece and identifying the key cost contributors., Research Design and Methods: A cost-of-illness model was developed for estimating the total annual economic burden of AF-related stroke in Greece, from asocietal perspective (year 2018). Atargeted literature review and an advisory board consisting of key experts in the management of AF and AF-related stroke were performed for collecting local resource use and epidemiological data., Results: The total annual socioeconomic burden of AF-related stroke was estimated at €175million, in 2018. Direct and indirect costs accounted for 59% and 41%, respectively. Main contributors were informal care (21.1%), patients' productivity losses (19.7%) and hospitalizations (15.0%), accounting for more than half of the total costs of AF-related stroke events. Conclusion: A F-related stroke imposes asignificant socioeconomic burden in Greece. Despite results relying on estimations, it seems that ensuring efficient reallocation of resources in appropriate prevention and early intervention strategies could decrease AF-related stroke's burden but also enhance healthcare systems' efficiency., Abbreviations: AF=atrial fibrillation.

Background: Reports from countries severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic suggest a decline in acute coronary syndrome (ACS)-related hospitalizations. The generalizability of this observation on ACS admissions and possible related causes in countries with low COVID-19 incidence are not known., Hypothesis: ACS admissions were reduced in a country spared by COVID-19., Methods: We conducted a nationwide study on the incidence rates of ACS-related admissions during a 6-week period of the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding control period in 2019 in Greece, a country with strict social measures, low COVID-19 incidence, and no excess in mortality., Results: ACS admissions in the COVID-19 (n = 771) compared with the control (n = 1077) period were reduced overall (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.72, P < .001) and for each ACS type (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]: IRR: 0.76, P = .001; non-STEMI: IRR: 0.74, P < .001; and unstable angina [UA]: IRR: 0.63, P = .002). The decrease in STEMI admissions was stable throughout the COVID-19 period (temporal correlation; R 2 = 0.11, P = .53), whereas there was a gradual decline in non-STEMI/UA admissions (R 2 = 0.75, P = .026) following the progressively stricter social measures. During the COVID-19 period, patients admitted with ACS presented more frequently with left ventricular systolic impairment (22.2 vs 15.5% control period; P < .001)., Conclusions: We observed a reduction in ACS hospitalizations during the COVID-19 outbreak in a country with strict social measures, low community transmission, and no excess in mortality. Medical care avoidance behavior is an important factor for these observations, while a true reduction of the ACS incidence due to self-isolation/quarantining may have also played a role., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has evolved into a global pandemic. Low-dose colchicine combines anti-inflammatory action with a favorable safety profile., Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with colchicine on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial (the Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention), 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized in a 1:1 allocation from April 3 to April 27, 2020, to either standard medical treatment or colchicine with standard medical treatment. The study took place in 16 tertiary hospitals in Greece., Intervention: Colchicine administration (1.5-mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg after 60 min and maintenance doses of 0.5 mg twice daily) with standard medical treatment for as long as 3 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were (1) maximum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level; (2) time for C-reactive protein to reach more than 3 times the upper reference limit; and (3) time to deterioration by 2 points on a 7-grade clinical status scale, ranging from able to resume normal activities to death. Secondary end points were (1) the percentage of participants requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) number, type, severity, and seriousness of adverse events. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated (61 [58.1%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [54-76] years) with 50 (47.6%) randomized to the control group and 55 (52.4%) to the colchicine group. Median (interquartile range) peak high-sensitivity cardiac troponin values were 0.0112 (0.0043-0.0093) ng/mL in the control group and 0.008 (0.004-0.0135) ng/mL in the colchicine group (P = .34). Median (interquartile range) maximum C-reactive protein levels were 4.5 (1.4-8.9) mg/dL vs 3.1 (0.8-9.8) mg/dL (P = .73), respectively. The clinical primary end point rate was 14.0% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Mean (SD) event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days the in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P = .03). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, except for diarrhea, which was more frequent with colchicine group than the control group (25 patients [45.5%] vs 9 patients [18.0%]; P = .003)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration. There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels. These findings should be interpreted with caution., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04326790.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that more intensive over standard anticoagulation administered during coronary angiography would significantly reduce rates of radial artery occlusion (RAO)., Background: RAO, although silent, remains a frequent and therefore worrisome complication following transradial coronary angiography. Anticoagulation is effective in reducing RAO, but the optimal heparin dose remains ill defined., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized superiority trial, a high dose (100 IU/kg body weight administered in divided doses) and a standard dose (50 IU/kg body weight) of heparin during 5- or 6-F coronary angiography were compared. A total of 3,102 patients were randomized, of whom 1,836 patients not proceeding to percutaneous coronary intervention and without need for arterial access crossover entered the trial. Post-catheterization hemostasis did not follow a rigid protocol., Results: A total of 102 early RAOs were found on ultrasonography (incidence 5.6%). In the high-dose heparin group, the rate of RAO was significantly lower compared with the standard-dose heparin group (27 [3.0%] vs. 75 [8.1%]; odds ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.22 to 0.55; p < 0.001), without compromising safety. The time to achieve hemostasis was similar between groups. To avoid 1 RAO, the number of patients needed to treat in the high-dose heparin group was approximately 20. These results were corroborated by our integrated database, showing an 80% reduction of forearm artery occlusions in high versus low heparin dose patients and our updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrating significant benefit of higher over lower anticoagulation intensity., Conclusions: High compared with standard heparin dose significantly reduced the rate of RAO in patients undergoing coronary angiography. High-intensity anticoagulation should be considered in transradial diagnostic procedures. (High [100IU/Kg] Versus Standard [50IU/Kg] Heparin Dose for Prevention of Forearm Artery Occlusion; NCT02570243)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Tiger-II with Judkins 3.5L/4R catheters in coronary angiography (CAG) via the transradial approach (TRA)., Methods and Results: Consecutive patients undergoing non-urgent CAG via the right TRA were randomised to either the Tiger-II (Terumo) or Judkins (3.5L/4R; Medtronic) 5 Fr catheters; 320 patients in each group were randomised. Catheter or access site change was required in 57 (17.8%) vs. 68 (21.3%) patients allocated to the Tiger-II and Judkins group, respectively (p=0.3). The study's primary endpoint of contrast volume (ml) used until completion of CAG was lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 66.8 (54.0-82.0) vs. 73.4 (60.0-94.1), p<0.001. Angiography, fluoroscopy time (min) and severe spasm rate were also significantly lower for Tiger-II vs. Judkins group: 5.52 (4.17-7.32) vs. 6.85 (5.15-9.63), p<0.00, 2.01 (1.32-3.13) vs. 2.24 (1.50-3.50), p=0.01 and 6 (2.8%) vs. 39 (12.2%), p<0.001, respectively. The Tiger-II catheter obtained better opacification grade for the right coronary artery (RCA): 4.0 (4.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0-4.0), p=0.02, but slightly compromised opacification of the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCX) arteries compared with the Judkins group: 3.75 (3.0-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.5-4.0), p<0.001, and 3.78 (3.6-4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.6-4.0), p<0.001, respectively., Conclusions: The Tiger-II was found superior to the Judkins 3.5L/4R regarding contrast volume use, procedural and fluoroscopy time, spasm rate and RCA imaging, and inferior regarding LAD and LCX imaging.

Background: The ulnar artery is rarely selected for coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention despite the expanding use of the transradial approach. We aimed to establish noninferiority of a default transulnar relative to transradial approach in terms of feasibility and safety., Methods and Results: This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group study involving 902 patients at 5 sites eligible to undergo diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either transradial approach (reference intervention) or transulnar approach (experimental intervention) regardless of the Allen test results. The primary end point was a composite of cross-over to another arterial access, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major vascular events of the arm at 60 days. The study was prematurely terminated after the first interim analysis because of inferiority of the transulnar approach. Although the difference in the primary end point became inconclusive after adjustment for operator clustering (24.30%; 99.99% confidence interval [CI], -7.98% to 56.58%; P=0.03 at α=0.0001), need for cross-over in the transulnar group remained inferior to transradial access site with a difference of 26.34% (95% CI, 11.96%-40.69%; P=0.004)., Conclusions: As a result of higher cross-over rates, a first-line transulnar strategy was proven inferior to the transradial approach for coronary procedures. At present, the transulnar route should not be regarded as an acceptable alternative to the transradial access site.

Introduction: The latest advances in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) have established this technique as the gold standard imaging modality for many cardiac diseases. However, cardiologists seem to be reluctant to use CMR in their everyday clinical practice., Methods: In an attempt to identify some of the reasons for this discrepancy, we conducted a survey employing a written questionnaire completed by 60 trained cardiologists in the third most populated region of Greece., Results: Cardiologists would refer patients for CMR rarely (71.6%) or never (28.3%). The most frequent indications for CMR were congenital heart disease (46.7%) and aortography (28.3%). Only 13.3% were familiar with cardiac computed tomography and 8.3% with CMR. Participants would like CMR to be able to clarify coronary artery anatomy (81.3%). Only 3% answered correctly all the questions regarding contraindications of CMR. The main reasons for not referring a patient for CMR were non-availability (75%), lack of familiarity (60%), and high cost (55%). The most appropriate physician for conducting/interpreting a CMR examination is a cardiologist (31.7%), radiologist (10%), both (51.7%), or not important (6.7%). The method is going to expand a lot (41.6%), moderately (46.7%), or not at all (1.2%) in the future., Conclusions: A complex interplay between the lack of trained physicians and technicians, non-availability of scanners for CMR, high costs, and lack of adequate education of cardiologists, leads to a vicious circle with the final odds against CMR. Actions to bypass these issues are required on behalf of all scientists involved in CMR imaging. Training of more physicians and technicians, establishment of dedicated CMR programs, and in-depth education of cardiologists regarding the indications and advantages of CMR over other imaging modalities, will be required if CMR is to become established in everyday clinical practice.