Search

Platypnoea–orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) is an uncommon but challenging clinical condition characterised by positional dyspnoea (platypnoea) and arterial desaturation (orthodeoxia) in the upright position that improve in the supine position. Since its first description, many cases have been reported and many conditions have been associated with this syndrome. Herein, we review the clinical presentation, pathophysiology, diagnostic work‐up and management of patients with POS, aiming to increase the awareness of this often misdiagnosed condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inflammation is the main pathophysiological process involved in atherosclerotic plaque formation, progression, instability, and healing during the evolution of coronary artery disease (CAD). The use of colchicine, a drug used for decades in non-ischemic cardiovascular (CV) diseases and/or systemic inflammatory conditions, stimulated new perspectives on its potential application in patients with CAD. Previous mechanistic and preclinical studies revealed anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of colchicine exerted through its principal mechanism of microtubule polymerization inhibition, however, other pleiotropic effects beneficial to the CV system were observed such as inhibition of platelet aggregation and suppression of endothelial proliferation. In randomized double-blinded clinical trials informing our clinical practice, low doses of colchicine were associated with the significant reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with stable CAD and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) while in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), early initiation of colchicine treatment significantly reduced major adverse CV events (MACE). On the other hand, the safety profile of colchicine and its potential causal relationship to the observed increase in non-CV deaths warrants further investigation. For these reasons, postulates of precision medicine and patient-tailored approach with regards to benefits and harms of colchicine treatment should be employed at all times due to potential toxicity of colchicine as well as the currently unresolved signal of harm concerning non-CV mortality. The main goal of this review is to provide a balanced, critical, and comprehensive evaluation of currently available evidence with respect to colchicine use in the setting of CAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) may result in left ventricle overload and distension. Percutaneous microaxial flow pump Impella in addition to VA-ECMO (ECPELLA) is an emerging option to overcome these collateral effects. Aim of this study is to assess whether the addition of Impella to VA-ECMO is an effective and safe unloading strategy., Methods and Results: We performed a systematic literature review of studies comparing ECPELLA vs. ECMO alone in patients with CS. The primary endpoint was early mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality). The secondary endpoints were bleeding, need for kidney replacement therapy, haemolysis, infections, and limb ischaemia. A total of 3469 potentially relevant articles were screened and eight retrospective studies including 11.137 patients were selected. There was no significant difference in early mortality (Risk Ratio, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.03) between ECPELLA and ECMO. Nevertheless, there was a borderline significant reduction in early mortality with ECPELLA (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-1.00) at sensitivity analysis selectively including studies reporting propensity matched analysis. ECPELLA was associated with increased bleeding (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.20-1.75), need for kidney replacement therapy (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19-1.99), haemolysis (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.41-2.07) and limb ischaemia (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.75) and with a non-significant increase in severe infections (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84-1.89), compared with ECMO alone., Conclusion: Among patients with cardiogenic shock, ECPELLA is associated with increased complications compared with ECMO. Whether reducing ventricular overload with Impella among patients treated with ECMO reduces early mortality needs to be confirmed by further investigations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Adenosine has been tested in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to minimize the incidence of coronary microvascular obstruction (CMVO). The aim of this study was to pool all the RCTs comparing intracoronary or intravenous adenosine versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing myocardial revascularization., Methods and Results: PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were scanned for eligible studies up to 5th June 2022. A total of 26 RCTs with 5843 patients were included. Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Atrioventricular blocks and ventricular fibrillation/sustained ventricular tachycardia (VF/SVT) were the safety endpoints. Myocardial blush grade, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), infarct size, and ST-segment resolution were also assessed. Adenosine administration was not associated with any clinical benefit in terms of MACE, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, adenosine was associated with an increased rate of advanced atrioventricular blocks and of VF/SVT in studies with total mean ischaemic time >3 h, compared to placebo. Remarkably, among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, adenosine was associated with reduced myocardial blush grade 0-1 and TIMI flow grade 0-2, compared to placebo. Furthermore, adenosine did not show favourable effects on LVEF and infarct size., Conclusion: Adenosine infusion, as adjunctive therapy in ACS, was associated with an increased risk of advanced atrioventricular blocks and increased rates of adenosine-triggered ventricular arrhythmias in patients with long ischaemic time, without providing any clinical benefit compared to placebo., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aims of this study is to assess by an updated meta-analysis the clinical outcomes related to permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) at long-term (≥12 months) follow-up (LTF)., Methods and Results: A comprehensive literature research was performed on PubMed and EMBASE. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. Secondary endpoints were rehospitalization for heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021243301). A total of 51 069 patients undergoing TAVI from 31 observational studies were included. The mean duration of follow-up was 22 months. At LTF, PPI post-TAVI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.25; P < 0.001] and rehospitalization for heart failure (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.13-1.52; P < 0.001). In contrast, the risks of stroke and myocardial infarction were not affected. Among the 20 studies that reported procedural risk, the association between PPI and all-cause death risk at LTF was statistically significant only in studies enrolling patients with high STS-PROM score (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12-1.40), although there was a similar tendency of the results in those at medium and low risk., Conclusion: Patients necessitating PPI after TAVI have a higher long-term risk of all-cause death and rehospitalization for heart failure as compared to those who do not receive PPI., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2022. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)