Citations

Introduction: Corticosteroid therapy has been demonstrated to improve prognosis and reduce mortality in patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection by attenuating the exaggerated inflammatory response that emerges in the late phase of infection. However, its impact on patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, who are at higher risk of complications, has not been specifically studied. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality and long-term COVID-19 symptoms in this high-risk population. Methods: We analyzed the prospective registry HOPE-2. Patients with previous cardiovascular disease were selected, and 18-month all-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint. Long-term COVID-19 symptoms were considered as secondary endpoints. A total of 1188 patients with previous heart disease were included, of which 453 received corticosteroid treatment. Propensity score matching analysis in a 1:1 fashion was performed based on baseline variables that exhibited a p-value < 0.05 in the univariant analysis and outcome variables that defined corticosteroid use, with a final matched population of 796 patients. Results: In patients with pre-existing heart disease, corticosteroid treatment was not associated with differences in 18-month all-cause mortality (p = 0.52). However, a shorter duration of hospitalization (median: 8 days [IQR: 4–14] and 11 days [IQR: 7–18]; p < 0.001) was observed in patients who received corticosteroids. No significant differences in long-term COVID-19 symptoms were observed between the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with pre-existing heart disease, the absence of a clear harmful effect suggests that the positive effects of corticosteroids may be offset by their potential adverse effects which could contribute to the persistence of long COVID symptoms. This finding may reflect a differential response to corticosteroids in this high-risk subgroup, highlighting the need for further studies to clarify the role of this therapy in such patients.

ABSTRACT Ventricular arrhythmias (VA), including ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, are critical cardiac conditions that are often managed by catheter ablation among those unresponsive to pharmacologic therapy. The choice of anesthesia and sedation regimens for VA ablations may impact arrhythmia inducibility and hemodynamic stability, which can affect procedural success and complication rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sedation versus general anesthesia (GA) among patients undergoing VA ablation. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023441553). Database searches were conducted across five major databases from inception to March 9, 2024 to identify randomized trials or observational studies including adult patients undergoing ablations for VA. Screening and data extraction were completed in duplicate. Risk-of-bias assessments were conducted using ROBINS-I as all included studies were observational, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Six observational studies (N = 16,435) were included. No significant differences were found between sedation and GA for total procedure time (MD: −14.16 minutes; 95%CI: −38.61 to 10.29 minutes), arrhythmia non-inducibility (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.33–1.58), acute ablation success (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.65–1.71), or procedural complications (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.28–1.85). However, sedation was associated with significantly lower intraprocedural hemodynamic instability (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12–0.70). These findings indicate that while sedation and GA have comparable outcomes, sedation may be associated with less hemodynamic instability during VA ablation. However, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

Background: Acute cardiac injury (ACI) after COVID-19 has been linked with unfavorable clinical outcomes, but data on the clinical impact of elevated cardiac troponin on discharge during follow-up are scarce. Our objective is to elucidate the clinical outcome of patients with elevated troponin on discharge after surviving a COVID-19 hospitalization. Methods: We conducted an analysis in the prospective registry HOPE-2 (NCT04778020). Only patients discharged alive were selected for analysis, and all-cause death on follow-up was considered as the primary endpoint. As a secondary endpoint, we established any long-term COVID-19 symptoms. HOPE-2 stopped enrolling patients on 31 December 2021, with 9299 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, of which 1805 were deceased during the acute phase. Finally, 2382 patients alive on discharge underwent propensity score matching by relevant baseline variables in a 1:3 fashion, from 56 centers in 8 countries. Results: Patients with elevated troponin experienced significantly higher all-cause death during follow-up (log-rank = 27.23, p < 0.001), and had a higher chance of experiencing long-term COVID-19 cardiovascular symptoms. Specifically, fatigue and dyspnea (57.7% and 62.8%, with p-values of 0.009 and <0.001, respectively) are among the most common. Conclusions: After surviving the acute phase, patients with elevated troponin on discharge present increased mortality and long-term COVID-19 symptoms over time, which is clinically relevant in follow-up visits.

Abstract Background Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may be performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). There is a paucity of data studying these two sedation strategies with respect to intraprocedural characteristics, and outcomes of VT ablation. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of anesthesia techniques on VT inducibility and outcomes. Methods A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT, from 2016-2022, was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results One hundred sixty-eight patients who underwent a total of 200 VT ablation procedures were included. The patients undergoing GA had a greater burden of comorbidities including congestive heart failure (77.2% vs. 60.9%), hypertension (66.9% vs. 60.0%), atrial arrhythmias (50.7% vs. 43.8%), diabetes mellitus (21.3% vs. 9.4%), chronic kidney disease (44.1% vs. 31.3%), prior stroke (11.8% vs. 10.9%), myocardial infarction (31.6% vs. 29.7%), pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (86.8% vs. 71.9%) and had a higher median number of antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline (2 vs. 1) [Figure 1]. There was a greater percentage of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (58.1% vs. 51.6%) in the GA cohort. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was not different among the two groups (39.3 ± 13.9 vs. 42.5 ± 15.3). The GA group had more hemodynamic instability at baseline (p &lt; 0.01), and during VT induction (p &lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of VT induced, or tachycardia cycle length, in each group. Despite higher radiofrequency energy delivery time in the GA group as compared to the MAC group, the GA group had higher VT inducibility post-procedure and were more likely to be discharged on antiarrhythmic drugs. Even though the recurrence of VT was higher in the GA group compared to the MAC group (41.9% vs. 31.3%), the VT-free survival curves were not significantly different by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.19) [Figure 2]. In a multivariate regression analysis, the sedation strategy was not an independent predictor of VT recurrence (p=NS). However, baseline hemodynamic instability was an independent predictor of VT recurrence after accounting for all intraprocedural characteristics (p=0.008). Conclusion Patients undergoing VT ablation under GA have more comorbidities and tend to be on more antiarrhythmic drugs. The GA group had more hemodynamic instability during the procedure and had greater overall VT recurrence, however, not significant in a time-based analysis. The greater overall recurrence in the GA group could be because they represent a sicker population, or the hemodynamics during the procedure preclude adequate ablation of the VT circuit elements.Figure 1Figure 2

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.

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: Women have a higher rate of adverse events after mitral valve surgery. We sought to evaluate whether outcomes after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair intervention by sex have similar trends to mitral valve surgery. Methods: The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse events defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and any bleeding in the overall study cohort. Patients who underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip system in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry were evaluated. Linked administrative claims from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes. Associations between sex and outcomes were evaluated using a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital outcomes and Cox model for 1-year outcomes. Results: From November 2013 to March 2017, 5295 patients, 47.6% (n=2523) of whom were female, underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. Females were less likely to have >1 clip implanted ( P <0.001) and had a lower adjusted odds ratio of device success (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67–0.90]), driven by lower odds of residual mitral gradient <5 mm Hg (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54 [CI, 0.46–0.63]) when compared with males. At 1-year follow-up, the primary outcome did not differ by sex. Female sex was associated with lower adjusted 1-year risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80 [CI, 0.68–0.94]), but the adjusted 1-year risk of stroke and any bleeding did not differ by sex. Conclusions: No difference in composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, and any bleeding was observed between females and males. Adjusted 1-year all-cause mortality was lower in females compared with males.

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.

A 52-year-old woman with a history of cervical spondylosis, nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, and complete heart block with implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (Inogen XR, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) underwent bilateral fluoroscopy-guided radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves at C4, C5, and C6 levels at an ambulatory surgery center. After completion of the seemingly routine procedure, several alerts, including 1 inappropriate shock, were received via Boston Scientific’s remote monitoring system. Tracings also showed that pacing inhibition occurred. When performing radiofrequency ablation in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device, it is imperative to follow published best practice recommendations to minimize the risk of adverse events.

AbstractObjectivesTo assess the Usefulness of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in patients with coronary artery aneurysm (CAA).BackgroundData on the most adequate antithrombotic CAA management is lacking.MethodsPatients included in CAAR (Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry, Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02563626) were selected. Patients were divided in OAT and non‐OAT groups, according to anticoagulation status at discharge and 2:1 propensity score matching with replacement was performed. The primary endpoint of the analysis was a composite and mutual exclusive endpoint of myocardial infarction, unstable angina (UA), and aneurysm thrombosis (coronary ischemic endpoint). Net adverse clinical events, major adverse cardiovascular events, their single components, cardiovascular death, re‐hospitalizations for heart failure, stroke, aneurysm thrombosis, and bleeding were the secondary ones.ResultsOne thousand three hundred thirty‐one patients were discharged without OAT and 211 with OAT. In the propensity‐matched sample (390 patients in the non‐OAT group, 195 patients in the OAT group), after 3 years of median follow‐up (interquartile range 1–6 years), the rate of the primary endpoint (coronary ischemic endpoint) was significantly less in the OAT group as compared to non‐OAT group (8.7 vs. 17.2%, respectively; p = .01), driven by a significant reduction in UA (4.6 vs. 10%, p < .01) and aneurysm thrombosis (0 vs. 3.1%, p = .03), along with a non‐significant reduction in MI (4.1 vs. 7.7%, p = .13). A non‐significant increase in bleedings, mainly BARC type 1 (55%), was found in the OAT‐group (10.3% in the non‐OAT vs. 6.2% in the OAT group, p = .08).ConclusionOAT decreases the composite endpoint of UA, myocardial infarction, and aneurysm thrombosis in patients with CAA, despite a non‐significant higher risk of bleeding.