Search

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition associated with high morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to perform a risk score for in-hospital mortality that allows for stratifying the risk of death in patients with CS.This is a retrospective analysis, which included 135 patients from a Spanish university hospital between 2011 and 2020. The Santiago Shock Score (S3) was created using clinical, analytical, and echocardiographic variables obtained at the time of admission.The in-hospital mortality rate was 41.5%, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was the responsible cause of shock in 60.7% of patients. Mitral regurgitation grade III-IV, age, ACS etiology, NT-proBNP, blood hemoglobin, and lactate at admission were included in the score. The S3 had good accuracy for predicting in-hospital mortality area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.90), higher than the AUC of the CardShock score, which was 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.83). Predictive power in a cohort of 131 patients with profound CS was similar to that of CardShock with an AUC of 0.601 (95% CI 0.496-0.706) versus an AUC of 0.558 (95% CI 0.453-0.664). Three risk categories were created according to the S3: low (scores 0-6), intermediate (scores 7-10), and high (scores 11-16) risks, with an observed mortality of 12.9%, 49.1%, and 87.5% respectively (P0.001).The S3 score had excellent predictive power for in-hospital mortality in patients with nonprofound CS. It could aid the initial risk stratification of patients and thus, guide treatment and clinical decision making in patients with CS.

RESUMEN Introducción y objetivos: La Organización Mundial de la Salud calificó la enfermedad por coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) como una pandemia global. No está claro si el tratamiento previo con inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina (IECA) y antagonistas de los receptores de la angiotensina II (ARA-II) tiene un impacto en el pronóstico de los pacientes infectados con COVID-19. El objetivo es evaluar la implicación clínica del tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en el pronóstico de la COVID-19. Métodos: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo, unicéntrico y de cohortes basado en todos los habitantes del área de salud. El análisis de los resultados principales (mortalidad, insuficiencia cardiaca, hospitalización, ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos [UCI] y eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores [un compuesto de mortalidad e insuficiencia cardiaca]), se ajustó mediante modelos de regresión logística multivariada y modelos de coincidencia de puntuación de propensión. Resultados: De una población total de 447.979 habitantes, se diagnosticó de infección por COVID-19 a 965 pacientes (0,22%), de los que 210 (21,8%) estaban en tratamiento con IECA o ARA-II en el momento del diagnóstico. El tratamiento con IECA/ARA-II (combinado o individual) no tuvo efecto en la mortalidad (OR = 0,62; IC95%, 0,17-2,26; p = 0,486), la insuficiencia cardiaca (OR = 1,37; IC95%, 0,39-4,77; p = 0,622), la tasa de hospitalizaciones (OR = 0,85; IC95%, 0,45-1,64; p = 0,638), los ingresos en UCI (OR = 0,87; IC95%, 0,30-2,50; p = 0,798) y los eventos cardiovasculares agudos mayores (OR = 1,06; IC95%, 0,39-2,83; p = 0,915). En el análisis del subgrupos de pacientes que requirieron hospitalización, el efecto se mantuvo neutral. Conclusiones: El tratamiento previo con IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no tuvo efecto en la mortalidad, la aparición de insuficiencia cardiaca o la necesidad de hospitalización o ingreso en UCI. La supresión de los IECA/ARA-II en pacientes con COVID-19 no estaría justificada en ningún caso según las recomendaciones actuales de las sociedades científicas y las agencias gubernamentales.

Background: In elderly patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), while routine invasive management is established in high-risk NSTEACS patients, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of the procedure. Methods: This study analyzes the association of early coronary angiography with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients older than 75 years old with NSTEACS. This retrospective observational study included 7811 consecutive NSTEACS patients who were examined between the years 2003 and 2017 at two Spanish university hospitals. There were 2290 patients older than 75 years old. We compared their baseline characteristics according to the early invasive strategy used (coronarography 24 h) after the diagnosis of NSTEACS. Results: Among the study participants, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. The mean follow-up period was 46 months (interquartile range 18-71 months). This association was also maintained after propensity score matching: early invasive strategy was significantly related to lower all-cause mortality [HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (CI 95% 0.54-0.71)]. Concusions: In a contemporary real-world registry of elderly NSTEACS patients, early invasive management significantly reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE during long-term follow-up. Brief summary: In this real-world retrospective observational study that included 2451 patients older than 75 years old, 1566 patients (68.38%) underwent early invasive coronary intervention. After performing a propensity score matching, the early invasive strategy was still associated with lower all-cause mortality [HR (hazard ratio) 0.61, 95% CI (95% confidence interval) (0.51-0.71)], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.52 (95%CI 0.43-0.63)], and MACE [HR 0.62 (95%CI 0.54-0.71)] during long-term follow-up.