Search

Background The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. Methods HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. Results We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p

Background: The presence of any underlying heart condition could influence outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: The registry HOPE-COVID-19 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19, NCT04334291) is an international ambispective study, enrolling COVID-19 patients discharged from hospital, dead or alive. Results: HOPE enrolled 2798 patients from 35 centers in 7 countries. Median age was 67 years (IQR: 53.0-78.0), and most were male (59.5%). A relevant heart disease was present in 682 (24%) cases. These were older, more frequently male, with higher overall burden of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, obesity) and other comorbidities such renal failure, lung, cerebrovascular disease and oncologic antecedents (p < 0.01, for all). The heart cohort received more corticoids (28.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001), antibiotics, but less hydroxychloroquine, antivirals or tocilizumab. Considering the epidemiologic profile, a previous heart condition was independently related with shortterm mortality in the Cox multivariate analysis (1.62; 95% CI 1.29-2.03; p < 0.001). Moreover, heart patients needed more respiratory, circulatory support, and presented more in-hospital events, such heart failure, renal failure, respiratory insufficiency, sepsis, systemic infammatory response syndrome and clinically relevant bleedings (all, p < 0.001), and mortality (39.7% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: An underlying heart disease is an adverse prognostic factor for patients suffering COVID-19. Its presence could be related with different clinical drug management and would benefit from maintaining treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers during in-hospital stay. Fundacion Interhospitalaria para la Investigacion cardiovascular, FIC. Madrid, Spain 3.487 JCR (2021) Q2, 70/143 Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems 0.52 SJR (2021) Q2, 163/356 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine No data IDR 2021 UEM

Objectives No standard therapy, including anticoagulation regimens, is currently recommended for coronavirus disease 2019. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. Design Multicenter international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for Corona Virus Disease 2019). Setting Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Patients Five thousand eight hundred thirty-eight consecutive coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Interventions Anticoagulation therapy, including prophylactic and therapeutic regimens, was obtained for each patient. Measurements and main results Five thousand four hundred eighty patients (94%) did not receive any anticoagulation before hospitalization. Two-thousand six-hundred one patients (44%) during hospitalization received anticoagulation therapy and it was not associated with better survival rate (81% vs 81%; p = 0.94) but with higher risk of bleeding (2.7% vs 1.8%; p = 0.03). Among patients admitted with respiratory failure (49%, n = 2,859, including 391 and 583 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive ventilation, respectively), anticoagulation started during hospitalization was associated with lower mortality rates (32% vs 42%; p Conclusions Anticoagulation therapy in general population with coronavirus disease 2019 was not associated with better survival rates but with higher bleeding risk. Better results were observed in patients admitted with respiratory failure and requiring invasive ventilation.

Background. Most evidence regarding anticoagulation and COVID-19 refers to the hospitalization setting, but the role of oral anticoagulation (OAC) before hospital admission has not been well explored. We compared clinical outcomes and short-term prognosis between patients with and without prior OAC therapy who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods. Analysis of the whole cohort of the HOPE COVID-19 Registry which included patients discharged (deceased or alive) after hospital admission for COVID-19 in 9 countries. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Study outcomes were compared after adjusting variables using propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Results. 7698 patients were suitable for the present analysis (675 (8.8%) on OAC at admission: 427 (5.6%) on VKAs and 248 (3.2%) on DOACs). After PSM, 1276 patients were analyzed (638 with OAC; 638 without OAC), without significant differences regarding the risk of thromboembolic events (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.59–2.08). The risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.92–4.83), as well as the risk of mortality (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01–1.47; log-rank p value = 0.041), was significantly increased in previous OAC users. Amongst patients on prior OAC only, there were no differences in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality when comparing previous VKA or DOAC users, after PSM. Conclusion. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients on prior OAC therapy had a higher risk of mortality and worse clinical outcomes compared to patients without prior OAC therapy, even after adjusting for comorbidities using a PSM. There were no differences in clinical outcomes in patients previously taking VKAs or DOACs. This trial is registered with NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

COVID-19; Heart disease; Persistent COVID 19; Malaltia cardíaca; Persistent COVID-19; Enfermedad cardíaca; Persistente Background: Heart disease is linked to worse acute outcomes after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although long-term outcomes and prognostic factor data are lacking. We aim to characterize the outcomes and the impact of underlying heart diseases after surviving COVID-19 hospitalization. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the prospective registry HOPE-2 (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation for COVID-19-2, NCT04778020). We selected patients discharged alive and considered the primary end-point all-cause mortality during follow-up. As secondary main end-points, we included any readmission or any post-COVID-19 symptom. Clinical features and follow-up events are compared between those with and without cardiovascular disease. Factors with p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis to determine independent prognostic factors. Results: HOPE-2 closed on 31 December 2021, with 9299 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1805 died during this acute phase. Finally, 7014 patients with heart disease data were included in the present analysis, from 56 centers in 8 countries. Heart disease (+) patients were older (73 vs. 58 years old), more frequently male (63 vs. 56%), had more comorbidities than their counterparts, and suffered more frequently from post-COVID-19 complications and higher mortality (OR heart disease: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.81–3.84). Vaccination was found to be an independent protector factor (HR all-cause death: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.04–0.19). Conclusions: After surviving the acute phase, patients with underlying heart disease continue to present a more complex clinical profile and worse outcomes including increased mortality. The COVID-19 vaccine could benefit survival in patients with heart disease during follow-up. Non-conditioned grant (Fundación Interhospitalaria para la Investigación cardiovascular, FIC. Madrid, Spain). This nonprofit institution had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

BackgroundStandard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival.Methods7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient.ResultsDuring hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, pConclusionsAPT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding.Trial registration numberNCT04334291.

Gender-related differences in COVID-19 clinical presentation, disease progression, and mortality have not been adequately explored. We analyzed the clinical profile, presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients according to gender in the HOPE-COVID-19 International Registry. Among 2,798 enrolled patients, 1,111 were women (39.7%). Male patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and more comorbidities at baseline. After propensity score matching, 876 men and 876 women were selected. Male patients more often reported fever, whereas female patients more often reported vomiting, diarrhea, and hyposmia/anosmia. Laboratory tests in men presented alterations consistent with a more severe COVID-19 infection (eg, significantly higher C-reactive protein, troponin, transaminases, lymphocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and ferritin). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, bilateral pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, and renal failure were significantly more frequent in men. Men more often required pronation, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab administration. A significantly higher 30-day mortality was observed in men vs women (23.4% vs 19.2%; P = .039). Trial Numbers: NCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions (OGD) are a frequent symptom of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proposed that the neuroinvasive potential of the novel SARS-CoV-2 could be due to olfactory bulb invasion, conversely studies suggest it could be a good prognostic factor. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prognosis value of OGD in COVID-19. These symptoms were recorded on admission from a cohort study of 5868 patients with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 infection included in the multicenter international HOPE Registry (NCT04334291). There was statistical relation in multivariate analysis for OGD in gender, more frequent in female 12.41% vs 8.67% in male, related to age, more frequent under 65 years, presence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoke, renal insufficiency, lung, heart, cancer and neurological disease. We did not find statistical differences in pregnant (p = 0.505), patient suffering cognitive (p = 0.484), liver (p = 0.1) or immune disease (p = 0.32). There was inverse relation (protective) between OGD and prone positioning (0.005) and death (

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome is characterised by the presence of apnoea or obstructive hypopnoea during sleep, accompanied by hypoxia. It is estimated that the syndrome affects approximately 10% of men and 15% of women. Diagnosis and treatment rates have increased in recent years, but the condition remains undiagnosed in a high percentage of patients. Recent evidence suggests that OSA may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. The relationship between OSA and cardiovascular disease can be explained, at least in part, by the coexistence of cardiovascular risk factors in the two pathologies, such as age, overweight, smoking and sedentary lifestyle. However, OSA has been independently associated with the risk of developing hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and arrhythmias. Clinical trials that have evaluated the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention have not demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence or recurrence of cardiovascular events. This article analyses the relationship between OSA and cardiovascular risk and discusses recent clinical trials on the efficacy of CPAP in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF).MethodsWe conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated.Results1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p2 saturation ConclusionNIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis.Trial registration numbersNCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite its international aggressive extension, with a significant morbidity and mortality, the impact of renal function on its prognosis is uncertain. Methods Analysis from the international HOPE-Registry (NCT04334291). The objective was to evaluate the association between kidney failure severity on admission with the mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were categorized in 3 groups according to the estimated glomerular filtration rate on admission (eGFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, eGFR 30–60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR 60 vs eGFR 30-60 vs and eGFR

Background the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by poor outcomes and mortality, particularly in older patients. Methods post hoc analysis of the international, multicentre, ‘real-world’ HOPE COVID-19 registry. All patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 were selected. Epidemiological, clinical, analytical and outcome data were obtained. A comparative study between two age subgroups, 65–74 and ≥75 years, was performed. The primary endpoint was all cause in-hospital mortality. Results about, 1,520 patients aged ≥65 years (60.3% male, median age of 76 [IQR 71–83] years) were included. Comorbidities such as hypertension (69.2%), dyslipidaemia (48.6%), cardiovascular diseases (any chronic heart disease in 38.4% and cerebrovascular disease in 12.5%), and chronic lung disease (25.3%) were prevalent, and 49.6% were on ACEI/ARBs. Patients aged 75 years and older suffered more in-hospital complications (respiratory failure, heart failure, renal failure, sepsis) and a significantly higher mortality (18.4 vs. 48.2%, P < 0.001), but fewer admissions to intensive care units (11.2 vs. 4.8%). In the overall cohort, multivariable analysis demonstrated age ≥75 (OR 3.54), chronic kidney disease (OR 3.36), dementia (OR 8.06), peripheral oxygen saturation at admission 1 (OR 8.31) to be independent predictors of mortality. Conclusion patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for COVID-19 had high rates of in-hospital complications and mortality, especially among patients 75 years or older. Age ≥75 years, dementia, peripheral oxygen saturation 1 were independent predictors of mortality in this population.

PURPOSE Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with long-term cardiovascular complications, including ischemic heart disease (IHD). Nonetheless, DM may directly impair myocardial and lung structure and function. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of type 2 DM (T2DM) and glycemic control on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity in patients with IHD. METHODS The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of 91 consecutive patients (57 ± 10 yr, 90% men) who underwent a cardiopulmonary exercise test at the beginning of an exercise-based standard phase-II cardiac rehabilitation program, 2 to 3 mo after an acute coronary syndrome. Association of T2DM with cardiopulmonary exercise test parameters was assessed using multiple linear regression analysis controlling for prespecified potential confounders. RESULTS There were 26 (29%) diabetic subjects among IHD patients included in the study. After adjustment, T2DM was an independent predictor of a reduced peak oxygen uptake ((Equation is included in full-text article.)O2peak) (P = .005), a reduced pulse O2 trajectory (P = .001), a steeper minute ventilation to carbon dioxide output (VE/(Equation is included in full-text article.)CO2) slope (P = .046), and an increased dead space-to-tidal volume ratio (VD/VT) at peak exercise (P = .049). Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were significantly associated with a reduced forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) (P = .013), VE (P = .001), and VT (P = .007). (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2peak (P trend < .001), (Equation is included in full-text article.)O2 at anaerobic threshold (P trend < .001), and pulse O2 trajectory (P trend < .001) decreased among HbA1c tertiles. CONCLUSIONS Patients with IHD and a previous diagnosis of T2DM had a reduced aerobic capacity and a ventilation- perfusion mismatch compared with nondiabetic patients. Poor glycemic control in men further deteriorates aerobic capacity probably due to ventilatory inefficiency.