Guerra, Federico

Abstract Aims Operating on patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) is based on ACC/AHA or ESC/EACTS guidelines. Doubts persist on best surgical indications and their potential association with postoperative survival loss. We sought to investigate whether guideline-based indications lead to late postoperative survival loss in DMR patients. Methods and results We analysed outcome of 2833 patients from the Mitral Regurgitation International Database registry undergoing surgical correction of DMR. Patients were stratified by surgical indications: Class I trigger (symptoms, left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥ 40 mm, or left ventricular ejection fraction < 60%, n = 1677), isolated Class IIa trigger [atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary hypertension (PH), or left atrial diameter ≥ 55 mm, n = 568], or no trigger (n = 588). Postoperative survival was compared after matching for clinical differences. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was analysed. During a median 8.5-year follow-up, 603 deaths occurred. Long-term postoperative survival was lower with Class I trigger than in Class IIa trigger and no trigger (71.4 ± 1.9, 84.3 ± 2.3, and 88.9 ± 1.9% at 10 years, P < 0.001). Having at least one Class I criterion led to excess mortality (P < 0.001), while several Class I criteria conferred additional death risk [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42–1.66]. Isolated Class IIa triggers conferred an excess mortality risk vs. those without (HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.00–2.13, P = 0.05). Among these patients, isolated PH led to decreased postoperative survival vs. those without (83.7 ± 2.8% vs. 89.3 ± 1.6%, P = 0.011), with the same pattern observed for AF (81.8 ± 5.0% vs. 88.3 ± 1.5%, P = 0.023). According to RMST analysis, compare to those operated on without triggers, operating on Class I trigger patients led to 9.4-month survival loss (P < 0.001) and operating on isolated Class IIa trigger patients displayed 4.9-month survival loss (P = 0.001) after 10 years. Conclusion Waiting for the onset of Class I or isolated Class IIa triggers before operating on DMR patients is associated with postoperative survival loss. These data encourage an early surgical strategy.

Background COVID‐19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 and its impact on survival. Methods and Results A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 were enrolled in a multicenter‐international prospective registry (HOPE COVID‐19). Clinical data and in‐hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity‐score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score‐matched population, cumulative incidence of in‐hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P =0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID‐19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in‐hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42–0.92], P =0.018). Conclusions Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Background Standard 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. Methods 7824 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. Results During 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, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). Conclusions APT 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 number NCT04334291.