RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a novel technique increasingly used for plaque modification and endovascular revascularization in patients with severe calcification and peripheral artery disease. However, much of the available literature on IVL is focused on its use in coronary arteries, with relatively limited data on non-coronary artery use. AIM: To analyze the safety and efficacy of current IVL use in non-coronary artery lesions, as reported in case reports and case series. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Reference Citation Analysis databases for case reports and case series on IVL use in peripheral artery disease. We then extracted variables of interest and calculated the mean and proportions of these variables. RESULTS: We included 60 patients from 33 case reports/case series. Ninety-eight percent of the cases had IVL usage in only one blood vessel, while four had the IVL used in two vessels (2.0%), resulting in 64 Lesions treated with IVL. The mean age of the patients was 73.7 (SD 10.9). IVL was successfully used in severe iliofemoral artery stenosis (51.6%), severe innominate, subclavian, and carotid artery stenosis (26.7% combined), and severe mesenteric vessel stenosis (9.4%). Additionally, IVL was successfully used in severe renal (7.8%) and aortic artery (4.7%) stenosis. There were complications in 12% of the cases, with dissection being the commonest. CONCLUSION: IVL has successfully used in plaque modification and endovascular revascularization in severely calcified and challenging lesions in the iliofemoral, carotid, subclavian, aorta, renal, and mesenteric vessels. The most severe but transient complications were with IVL use in the aortic arch and neck arteries.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrhythmias have been identified as independent predictors of mortality in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. While some studies have reported poor prognosis with bradycardia in COVID-19 patients, others have not found any association between bradycardia and mortality in COVID-19 patients. This study aims to assess the relationship between bradycardia and mortality in COVID-19 patients by reviewing existing literature. MAIN BODY: Articles were obtained by systematically searching the PubMed and Google scholar databases. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the studies on bradycardia and mortality in COVID-19 were done. A pooled estimate, with a sample size of 1320 patients, comparing the effect of patients that were bradycardic during their admission with those that were not on mortality showed that bradycardia did not lead to increased mortality in COVID-19 patients (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41-3.84, p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that bradycardia was not significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients. However, this study is limited by the few studies on bradycardia and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, future studies should investigate this relationship so that clinicians can prognostically triage and treat COVID-19 patients appropriately.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2)is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host's inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS-CoV2 infection.Severe acute respiratory yndrome with coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of COVID-19 depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host's inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS-CoV2 infection. MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY: This multicenter retrospective observational study enrolled 2935 COVID-19 patients admitted at six hospitals in Southern California, USA, between March 2020 and August 2021. Our primary outcome was the association of pre-hospital use of ACEi and ARB on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. First, relevant deidentified patient data were extracted using an SQL program from the electronic medical record. Then, a bivariate analysis of the relationship between ACEi and ARB use and different study variables using χ2 and t test was done. Finally, we did a backward selection Cox multivariate regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable. RESULTS: Of the 2935 patients in the study, hypertension was present in 40.6%, and congestive heart failure in 13.8%. ACEi and ARB were used by 17.5% and 11.3% of patients, respectively, with 28.8% of patients on either medication. After adjusting for confounding variables in the multivariate analysis, the use of ACEi (HR: 1.226, 95% CI: 0.989-1.520) or ARB (HR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.701-1.216) was not independently associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Our results are consistent with the clinical guidelines and position statements per the International Society of Hypertension, that there is no indication to stop the use of ACEi/ARB in COVID-19 patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction Bradycardia has been reported in the setting of SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) and appears to be an important cardiac manifestation with an association of mortality. However, the etiology of bradycardia in COVID-19 remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to retrospectively investigate the potential causes of bradycardia in COVID-19 patients. Method The multicenter retrospective analysis consisted of 1,116 COVID-19 positive patients from March 2020 to March 2021. Bradycardia and severe bradycardia were defined as a sustained heart rate of <60 BPM and <50 BPM, respectively, on two separate occasions, a minimum of four hours apart during the hospitalization. End-of-life bradycardia was excluded from the study. Data were retrieved using a structured query language (SQL) program through the EMR, and data were analyzed using IBM SPSS 27.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Logistic regression was used to study the bradycardic event and its association with remdesivir, beta-blockers, or steroids use during the patient's hospital stay. Result In the multivariate analysis, bradycardia was significantly associated with length of hospital stay (p<0.001), mortality (p=0.022), ventilator use (p=0.001), and steroid use (p=0.001). However, there was no significant association between bradycardia and remdesivir use (p=0.066) or beta-blocker use (p=0.789). Conclusion Our study showed that steroid use was protective against developing bradycardia in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, remdesivir and the use of beta-blockers were not associated with bradycardia in COVID-19 patients. However, bradycardia was associated with both increased mortality and length of stay in the hospital. Therefore, future studies should focus on the mechanism of bradycardia in COVID-19 patients and the effect of bradycardia on patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV2 has affected more than 73.8 million individuals. While SARS-CoV2 is considered a predominantly respiratory virus, we report a trend of bradycardia among hospitalized patients, particularly in association with mortality. METHODOLOGY: The multi-center retrospective analysis consisted of 1053 COVID-19 positive patients from March to August 2020. A trend of bradycardia was noted in the study population. Absolute bradycardia and profound bradycardia was defined as a sustained heart rate < 60 BPM and < 50 BPM, respectively, on two separate occasions, a minimum of 4 h apart during hospitalization. Each bradycardic event was confirmed by two physicians and exclusion criteria included: less than 18 years old, end of life bradycardia, left AMA, or taking AV Nodal blockers. Data was fetched using a SQL program through the EMR and data was analyzed using SPSS 27.0. A logistic regression was done to study the effect of bradycardia, age, gender, and BMI on mortality in the study group. RESULTS: 24.9% patients had absolute bradycardia while 13.0% had profound bradycardia. Patients with absolute bradycardia had an odds ratio of 6.59 (95% CI [2.83-15.36]) for mortality compared with individuals with a normal HR response. The logistic regression model explained 19.6% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of variance in the mortality, correctly classified 88.6% of cases, and was statistically significant X2 (5)=47.10, p < .001. For each year of age > 18, the odds of dying increased 1.048 times (95% CI [1.25-5.27]). CONCLUSION: The incidence of absolute bradycardia was found in 24.9% of the study cohort and these individuals were found to have a significant increase in mortality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated that ventricular response to stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is frequently abnormal in patients with a systemic right ventricle (RV). However, the clinical implications of these findings remained unknown. We sought to evaluate whether abnormal response to stress CMR predicts adverse outcome in patients with a systemic RV. METHODS: Thirty-nine adult patients (54% male; mean age 26, range 18-65 years) with a systemic RV underwent stress CMR to determine the response of RV volumes and ejection fraction (EF). During follow-up, cardiac events, defined as hospitalization for heart failure, cardiac surgery, aborted cardiac arrest, or death, were recorded. The prognostic value of an abnormal response to stress, defined as lack of a decrease in RV end-systolic volume (ESV) or lack of an increase in RV EF, was assessed. RESULTS: We frequently observed an abnormal response to stress, as RV ESV did not decrease in 17 patients (44%), and RV EF did not increase in 15 patients (38%). After a mean follow-up period of 8.1 years, 8 (21%) patients had reached the composite end point. The inability to decrease RV ESV during stress was predictive for cardiac events with a hazard ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.19-88.72, P = .034), as was the inability to increase RV EF with a hazard ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.31-81.59, P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Stress CMR potentially has important prognostic value in patients with a systemic RV. Patients with a systemic RV who show abnormal cardiac response to stress have a substantially higher risk of adverse outcome.

Asunto(s)