Search

Background The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in an extraordinary increase in the number of patients who are severely critically ill. For many of these patients, cardiovascular risk factors are key contributors to the development of severe illness. Laboratory markers for cardiac damage and failure, such as natriuretic peptides, are reported to be elevated in patients with severe COVID-19. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare natriuretic peptide levels in patients with severe COVID-19 vs those with nonsevere COVID-19. PubMed and medRxiv were searched through April 7, 2020. The outcome of interest was the difference in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal-proBNP levels in patients with severe vs nonsevere COVID-19. Results We identified 9 retrospective cohort studies that had a total of 1,575 patients with COVID-19 who had their natriuretic peptides measured and were classified by disease severity. All studies were conducted in China. Patients with severe COVID-19 had significantly higher BNP levels than patients with nonsevere COVID-19 (mean difference, 69.56 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1.77–137.35 pg/mL; P = .04, I2 = 83%). Similarly, patients with severe COVID-19 had significantly higher N-terminal-proBNP levels than patients with nonsevere COVID-19 (mean difference, 518.65 pg/mL; 95% CI, 152.40–884.90 pg/mL; P = .006, I2 = 86%). Conclusions In this study, Chinese patients with severe COVID-19 had higher natriuretic peptide levels than those with nonsevere COVID-19. Studies from all countries affected by the virus will help to further delineate whether the cause is directly or indirectly of cardiac origin and whether preexisting heart failure has an influence on this disparity.

Background: Statins are the mainstay of treatment for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering, however, some patients cannot tolerate statins because of adverse effects. Ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are alternative treatment options. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LDL-C reduction with ezetimibe vs PCSK9i in patients not on statins. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched until 14th March 2020 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of ezetimibe vs PCSK9i in patients not on statins. The primary outcome was a reduction in LDL-C levels. A subgroup analysis of statin intolerant patients was also performed. Results: We identified 8 RCTs that enrolled a total of 1602 patients comparing the two pharmacotherapies. PCSK9i lowered LDL-C levels significantly more than ezetimibe (mean difference (MD): -36.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-38.3, -34.7, p2=4%]. In the statin intolerant subgroup, PCSK9i showed significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels compared with ezetimibe (MD: -36.1; 95% CI [-39.2, -33.1, p2=21%]. There were no significant differences in LDL-C reduction between different PCSK9i dosages (140 mg once every 2 weeks vs 420 mg once every 4 weeks) (MD: -1.87; 95% CI [-4.45, 0.71, p2=0]. Conclusions: Among patients who are statin intolerant or not receiving statins, PCSK9i use is associated with significantly lower LDL-C levels than after treatment with ezetimibe. PCSK9i might be useful in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in this subset of patients.

Introduction: The worldwide pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in an extraordinary increase in the number of severe and critically ill patients in a relatively short span of time. Cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes are noted as being key contributing features of many patients who ultimately develop severe illness. As such, laboratory markers for cardiac damage and failure have been described as being elevated in this subset of patients. Hypothesis: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to identify and compare the values of natriuretic peptides in severely ill patient infected with the SARS-CoV-2 compared to those who are identified as being not severe. Methods: PUBMED and Medrxiv were searched through April 15th 2020. The outcome of interest is the difference of BNP or NT-pro BNP in severe versus non-severe Results: We identified 9 eligible retrospective cohort studies that observed a total of 1,575 patients that had their natriuretic peptides measured and who were classified by disease severity. Patients who were identified as having a non-severe status with the SARS-CoV-2 infection had a mean difference of -69.56 (95% CI) [-137.35, -1.77, P =0.04, I2=83%) in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels compared to those with severe status. Similarly, patients who had their N-terminal-pro BNP (NT-proBNP) levels measures had a mean difference of -518.65 (95% CI) [ -884.90, -152.40, P=0.006, I2=86%) when compared to those whom NT-proBNP levels were measured with severe status. Conclusions: In conclusion, patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and were classified as severe had higher levels of natriuretic peptides than patients who were classified as not severe.

Objective This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of orbital atherectomy (OA) for the treatment of severely calcified coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of severely calcified coronary artery lesions is associated with lower procedural success and higher rates of target lesion failure compared to non-calcified lesions. OA is an effective treatment for calcified coronary artery lesions prior to stent implantation. However, there is little data regarding the safety and efficacy of OA in patients with coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Methods Data were obtained from analysis of patients with severe coronary artery calcification who underwent OA and coronary stent implantation at ten high-volume institutions. Data were pooled and analyzed to assess peri-procedural outcomes and 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results A total of 1156 patients were treated with OA and PCI. 363 lesions were at a coronary artery bifurcation. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the bifurcation and non-bifurcation groups. In the bifurcation group, treatment involved the left anterior descending artery and its branches more frequently and right coronary artery less frequently. After propensity score matching, the 30-day freedom from MACE was not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion In this multicenter cohort analysis, patients with severely calcified coronary bifurcation lesions had low rates of MACE and target vessel revascularization at 30 days at rates comparable to non-bifurcation lesions. This analysis demonstrates that OA is safe and effective for complex coronary lesions at both bifurcation and non-bifurcation locations.

Objectives We evaluated the procedural and 1-year clinical outcomes of orbital atherectomy (OA) for treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Background The optimal treatment for ISR remains uncertain. While rotational and laser atherectomy have been used as neointimal debulking techniques for ISR, there have been few reports on OA for ISR. Methods This is a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR with OA in Mount Sinai catheterization laboratory between November 2013 and January 2018. Procedural success was defined as angiographic success without in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE; the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or target vessel revascularization). Clinical outcomes were assessed at 1 month and 12 months postprocedure. Results A total of 87 patients were included in the study. All 87 patients were treated with OA, after which 49 (56.3%) patients also received new drug-eluting stents. Angiographic success was achieved in 87 (100%) patients and procedural success was achieved in 79 (90.8%) patients. In-hospital MACE occurred in 8 (9.2%) patients, all due to periprocedural non-Q-wave MI. Acute lumen gain was 1.19 ± 0.57 mm after OA plus balloon angioplasty and 1.75 ± 0.50 mm after stent placement. MACE within 1 year occurred in 17 (19.5%) patients. Conclusions OA for ISR was performed with favorable procedural and 1-year clinical outcomes. Randomized trials are warranted to determine whether OA improves the poor prognosis of patients with ISR treated without debulking.

Aortitis can be the manifestation of an underlying infectious or noninfectious disease process. An autoimmune cause is suggested in a large proportion of noninfectious causes. Similar to other autoimmune diseases, the pathophysiology of aortitis has been investigated in detail, but the etiology remains unknown. Most cases of aortitis often go undetected for a long time and are often identified at late stages of the disease. Recent advances in imaging techniques have significantly improved the diagnosis of aortitis. However, significant challenges associated with the imaging techniques limit their use. Several routine inflammation-based markers, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and inflammatory cytokines, are nonspecific and, therefore, have limited use in the diagnosis of aortitis. The search for more specific serum biomarkers, which can facilitate detection and progression is under progress. Several autoantibodies have been identified, but assigning their role in the pathogenesis as well as their specificity remains a challenge. The current review addresses some of these issues in detail. KEY MESSAGES: • Noninfectious aortitis is an autoimmune disease. • Several biomarkers, including cytokines and autoantibodies, are increased in aortitis. • Imaging techniques, commonly used to detect aortitis, are associated with the high cost and technical challenges. • There is a need to develop low-cost biomarker-based detection tools. • The knowledge of biomarkers in aortitis detection is discussed.

While rotational atherectomy (RA) has been used as neointimal debulking technique for in-stent restenosis (ISR) for many years, there are only few reports describing the use of orbital atherectomy (OA) for ISR. The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of RA and OA for treatment of

Optimal treatment for in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a matter of debate. While rotational atherectomy and laser atherectomy have been used as neointimal debulking techniques for ISR, there has been few reports on orbital atherectomy (OA) for ISR. The aim of the study was to evaluate the