Search

Poor oral health has been linked to coronary heart disease (CHD). Clustering clinical oral conditions routinely recorded in adults may identify their CHD risk profile. Participants from the Paris Prospective Study 3 received, between 2008 and 2012, a baseline routine full-mouth clinical examination and an extensive physical examination and were thereafter followed up every 2 y until September 2020. Three axes defined oral health conditions: 1) healthy, missing, filled, and decayed teeth; 2) masticatory capacity denoted by functional masticatory units; and 3) gingival inflammation and dental plaque. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed with multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models and adjusted for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, education, deprivation (EPICES score; Evaluation of Deprivation and Inequalities in Health Examination Centres), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, LDL and HDL serum cholesterol (low- and high-density lipoprotein), triglycerides, lipid-lowering medications, NT-proBNP and IL-6 serum level. A sample of 5,294 participants (age, 50 to 75 y; 37.10% women) were included in the study. Cluster analysis identified 3,688 (69.66%) participants with optimal oral health and preserved masticatory capacity (cluster 1), 1,356 (25.61%) with moderate oral health and moderately impaired masticatory capacity (cluster 2), and 250 (4.72%) with poor oral health and severely impaired masticatory capacity (cluster 3). After a median follow-up of 8.32 y (interquartile range, 8.00 to 10.05), 128 nonfatal incident CHD events occurred. As compared with cluster 1, the risk of CHD progressively increased from cluster 2 (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.15) to cluster 3 (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.34 to 4.57; P < 0.05 for trend). To conclude, middle-aged individuals with poor oral health and severely impaired masticatory capacity have more than twice the risk of incident CHD than those with optimal oral health and preserved masticatory capacity (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00741728).

Objectives This study sought to assess the relationship between an immediate invasive strategy and survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of presumed cardiac cause, according to prognosis evaluated on hospital arrival. Background An immediate coronary angiogram (CAG) may be associated with better outcome after OHCA in neurologically preserved patients but could be futile in other cases. Methods From May 2011 to May 2015, we collected data for all patients admitted in hospital after OHCA in Paris and its suburbs (France). Risk of in-hospital death was retrospectively calculated using the validated Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis score, which includes age, setting, initial rhythm, durations from collapse to basic life support and from basic life support to return of spontaneous circulation, pH, and epinephrine dose. Independent predictors of survival at discharge (including immediate CAG) were assessed in multivariate logistic regression in each of the 3 pre-defined subgroups of Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis score: low risk ( 200 points) for in-hospital death. Results A total of 1,410 patients were included and overall survival rate at hospital discharge was 32%. Distribution in the low-, medium-, and high-risk Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis subgroups was 667 (47%), 469 (33%), and 274 patients (20%), respectively. The rate of early CAG was 86%, 66%, and 47% in the low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, respectively (p Conclusions In cardiac arrest patients, our results suggest that investigations regarding early CAG after OHCA should focus on patients with preserved neurological status.

Background Concomitant COVID-19 in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) may lead to difficulties in acute care management and may impair prognosis. To date, studies have involved a limited number of patients. Purpose To estimate and compare the characteristics, care management and 90-day outcomes of patients hospitalized for MI who didn’t have Covid-19, with those having concomitant hospital diagnosis of Covid-19 from the French National Health Data System, an exhaustive and nationwide database. Methods All patients hospitalised for MI in France between 30 December 2019 and 4 October 2020 were included. Patients with a previous hospitalization with Covid-19 were excluded (n = 135). Patients’ characteristics were compared according to Covid-19 status. 90-day mortality rates and follow-up outcomes were estimated and adjusted on age, sex and comorbidities. Results Among the 55,389 patients hospitalized for MI, 329 had concomitant Covid-19 (21% asymptomatic). MI patients with concomitant Covid-19 were more comorbid than patients without Covid-19. They had longer hospital stays, more admissions to resuscitation unit, underwent less percutaneous coronary intervention, and discharged more often to rehabilitation units than patients without Covid-19. The in-hospital and 90-day-out-of hospital mortality rates of MI patients with Covid-19 were 11.9% and 6.2%, respectively, compared to 3.5% and 2.8% in MI patients without Covid-19. The risk of in-hospital and out-of-hospital death remained increased after adjustment on comorbidities (ORajin-hosp = 3.31[2.32;4.72], ORajout-of-hosp = 1.79 [1.02;3.15]). Conclusions The prognosis of patients hospitalized for MI who had concomitant Covid-19 was impaired in the short term but also in the medium term. These results underline the need of an urgent protection of the population at cardiovascular risk from Covid-19, as well as a systematized and rapid management despite the pandemic context, and then a close follow-up of these patients.

Aims To assess whether the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions were applicable to men in Belfast and France. Methods and results We performed an external validation study within the PRIME (Prospective Epidemiological Study of Myocardial Infarction) cohort study. It comprised men recruited in Belfast (2399) and France (7359) who were aged 50 to 59 years, free of CHD at baseline (1991 to 1993) and followed over 5 years for CHD events (coronary death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris). We compared the relative risks of CHD associated with the classic risk factors in PRIME with those in Framingham and PROCAM cohorts. We then compared the number of predicted and observed 5-year CHD events (calibration). Finally, we estimated the ability of the risk functions to separate high risk from low risk subjects (discrimination). The relative risk of CHD calculated for the various factors in the PRIME population were not statistically different from those published in the Framingham and PROCAM risk functions. The number of CHD events predicted by these risk functions however clearly overestimated those observed in Belfast and France. The two risk functions had a similar ability to separate high risk from low risk subjects in Belfast and France (c-statistic range: 0.61–0.68). Conclusion The Framingham and PROCAM risk functions should not be used to estimate the absolute CHD risk of middle-aged men in Belfast and France without any CHD history because of a clear overestimation. Specific population risk functions are needed.