Search

Epidemiological evidence suggests that anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of statins may reduce the risk of infections and infection-related complications. We aimed to assess the impact of prior statin use on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity and mortality. In this observational multicenter study, consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled. In-hospital mortality and severity of COVID-19 assessed with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were deemed primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to obtain balanced cohorts. Among 842 patients enrolled, 179 (21%) were treated with statins before admission. Statin patients showed more comorbidities and more severe COVID-19 (NEWS 4 [IQR 2–6] vs 3 [IQR 2–5], p < 0.001). Despite having similar rates of intensive care unit admission, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation, statin users appeared to show higher mortality rates. After balancing pre-existing relevant clinical conditions that could affect COVID-19 prognosis with PS matching, statin therapy confirmed its association with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥5 61% vs. 48%, p = 0.025) but not with in-hospital mortality (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.185). At univariate logistic regression analysis, statin use was confirmed not to be associated with mortality (OR 0.901; 95% CI: 0.537 to 1.51; p = 0.692) and to be associated with a more severe disease (NEWS≥5 OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.067–2.71; p = 0.026). Our results did not confirm the supposed favorable effects of statin therapy on COVID-19 outcomes. Conversely, they suggest that statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities, which indeed expose to increased risks of more severe COVID-19. • Statin therapy does not affect in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. • Statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities. • Caution is needed in attributing benefits to statin therapy in COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Early evidence suggests that multipoint left ventricular pacing (MPP) may improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is unknown whether this benefit is sustained and cost‐effective. We used real‐world data to evaluate long‐term impact of MPP‐ON clinical status, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and costs. Methods: The Italian registry on multipoint left ventricular pacing is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients implanted with MPP‐enabled CRT devices. For this analysis, clinical and echocardiographic data were collected through 24 months and compared between patients with (MPP‐ON) or without (MPP‐OFF) early MPP activation at implant. The total cost of each HFH was estimated with national Italian reimbursement rates. Results: The study included 190 MPP‐OFF and 128 MPP‐ON patients with similar baseline characteristics. At 1 and 2 years, the MPP‐ON group had lower rates of HFH vs MPP‐OFF (1‐year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.14, P =.0014; 2‐year HR: 0.38, P =.009). The finding persisted in a subgroup of patients with consistent MPP activation through follow‐up (1‐year HR: 0.19; P =.0061; 2‐year HR: 0.39, P =.022). Total HFH per‐patient costs were lower in the MPP‐ON vs the MPP‐OFF group at 1 year (€101 ± 50 vs €698 ± 195, P <.001) and 2 years (€366 ± 149 vs €801 ± 203, P =.038). More MPP‐ON patients had ≥5% improvement in ejection fraction (76.8% vs 65.4%, P =.025) and clinical composite score (66.7% vs 47.5%, P =.01). Conclusions: In this multicenter clinical study, early MPP activation was associated with a significant reduction in cumulative HFH and related costs after 1 and 2 years of follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multipoint pacing (MPP) may improve clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT‐D), but its impact on battery longevity in a real‐world population has not been investigated in large trials. Objective: Compare projected battery longevity in CRT‐D patients with and without MPP during long‐term follow‐up. Methods: The Italian registry on multipoint left ventricular pacing (IRON‐MPP) is a prospective, multicenter registry of patients implanted with MPP‐capable CRT‐D devices. Projected battery longevity during follow‐up was compared for patients with MPP (MPP ON) vs single‐site (MPP OFF) left ventricular pacing at CRT‐D implantation. A sub‐analysis excluded crossover patients with MPP activation or deactivation occurring after implantation. A second sub‐analysis excluded patients with a right or left ventricular pacing amplitude >2.5 V. Results: Out of 237 CRT‐D patients (71 ± 9 years, 81% male) followed for 1.9 ± 0.8 years, 102 (43%) had MPP ON at implantation. Programmed atrial and ventricular outputs and percentage of pacing were similar between groups. MPP was associated with a 0.44 years reduction in projected battery longevity (P = .03) during long‐term follow‐up. Results were similar for the first and second sub‐analyses, with a 0.57 years (P < .001) and 0.71 years (P < .001) reduction in projected longevity, respectively. Conclusion: In this long‐term real‐world registry, early MPP activation is associated with less than a 1‐year reduction in projected battery life compared to single‐site biventricular pacing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The third-generation laser balloon (LB3) is an established ablation device for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) that allows direct visualization of the anatomical target. Equipped with an automatic circumferential laser delivery modality, it aims at continuous circumferential PVI, improving both acute and clinical outcomes. We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of LB3 ablation using an anatomical-based approach without verifying electrical isolation., Methods and Results: Among 257 paroxysmal AF patients undergoing LB3 ablation across four Italian centres, 204 (72% male, mean age 60.4 ± 11.1 years) were included. The primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence after the blanking period (BP), assessed with implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs). All pulmonary veins (PVs) were targeted using the LB3, with the RAPID mode used on an average of 96 ± 8, 86 ± 19, 98 ± 11, and 84 ± 15% for the left superior, left inferior, right superior, right inferior PV, and left common ostium, respectively. Freedom from arrhythmia recurrences was 84.8% at 1, 80.4% at 2, and 76.0% at 3 years. An ATa burden ≥ 5% was documented in 2.5, 4.4, and 5.4% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relapses during the BP [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.182, P = 0.032] and left atrial dilation (HR = 1.964, P = 0.048) were independent predictors of recurrences., Conclusion: Anatomical-guided LB3 ablation for paroxysmal AF is a safe and effective approach, providing excellent clinical outcomes as assessed by ICM over nearly 3 years of follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Recently, the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) because of the possibility of lead ruptures and accelerated battery depletion., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate device-related complications over time in a large real-world multicenter S-ICD cohort., Methods: Patients implanted with an S-ICD from January 2015 to June 2020 were enrolled from a 19-institution European registry (Experience from the Long-term Italian S-ICD registry [ELISIR]; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT0473876). Device-related complication rates over follow-up were collected. Last follow-up of patients was performed after the Boston Scientific recall issue., Results: A total of 1254 patients (median age 52.0 [interquartile range 41.0-62.2] years; 973 (77.6%) men; 387 (30.9%) ischemic) was enrolled. Over a follow-up of 23.2 (12.8-37.8) months, complications were observed in 117 patients (9.3%) for a total of 127 device-related complications (23.6% managed conservatively and 76.4% required reintervention). Twenty-seven patients (2.2%) had unanticipated generator replacement after 3.6 (3.3-3.9) years, while 4 (0.3%) had lead rupture. Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR] 1.063 [95% confidence interval 1.028-1.100]; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.960 [1.191-3.225]; P = .008), and oral anticoagulation (HR 1.437 [1.010-2.045]; P = .043) were associated with an increase in overall complications, whereas older age (HR 0.980 [0.967-0.994]; P = .007) and procedure performed in high-volume centers (HR 0.463 [0.300-0.715]; P = .001) were protective factors., Conclusion: The overall complication rate over 23.2 months of follow-up in a multicenter S-ICD cohort was 9.3%. Early unanticipated device battery depletions occurred in 2.2% of patients, while lead fracture was observed in 0.3%, which is in line with the expected rates reported by Boston Scientific., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since the body of evidence addressing the coagulation derangements caused by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been constantly growing, we investigated whether pre-hospitalization oral anticoagulation (OAC) or in-hospital heparin treatment could have a protective role among COVID-19 patients., Method: In this cohort study, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to four different Italian Institutions were enrolled. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, as well as in-hospital treatment and outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was mortality., Results: A total of 844 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as study cohort, n = 65 (7.7%) taking OACs prior to hospitalization. Regarding clinical outcomes, OAC patients developed acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) more frequently than non-OAC patients as well as presenting a higher mortality rate (44.6% vs 19.8%, p < 0.001). At overall multivariate logistical regression, use of heparin (n = 394, 46.6%) was associated with a better chance of survival to hospital discharge (OR 0.60 [0.38-0.94], p < 0.001), in particular in patients with AHRF, with no association found with the use of OACs. In a sub-analysis, the highest mortality rate was found for AHRF patients when heparin was not administered., Conclusion: In our cohort, OACs appeared to be ineffective in reducing mortality rate, while heparin resulted to be a useful treatment when lung disease was sufficiently severe, potentially suggesting a crucial role of microthrombosis in severe COVID-19. Due to the relatively small number of COVID-19 patients treated with OACs included in our analysis and their higher number of comorbidities, larger studies are needed in order to confirm our findings., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aims: The aim of the study was to describe ECG modifications and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients undergoing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in different clinical settings., Methods and Results: COVID-19 patients at seven institutions receiving HCQ therapy from whom a baseline and at least one ECG at 48+ h were available were enrolled in the study. QT/QTc prolongation, QT-associated and QT-independent arrhythmic events, arrhythmic mortality, and overall mortality during HCQ therapy were assessed. A total of 649 COVID-19 patients (61.9 ± 18.7 years, 46.1% males) were enrolled. HCQ therapy was administrated as a home therapy regimen in 126 (19.4%) patients, and as an in-hospital-treatment to 495 (76.3%) hospitalized and 28 (4.3%) intensive care unit (ICU) patients. At 36-72 and at 96+ h after the first HCQ dose, 358 and 404 ECGs were obtained, respectively. A significant QT/QTc interval prolongation was observed (P < 0.001), but the magnitude of the increase was modest [+13 (9-16) ms]. Baseline QT/QTc length and presence of fever (P = 0.001) at admission represented the most important determinants of QT/QTc prolongation. No arrhythmic-related deaths were reported. The overall major ventricular arrhythmia rate was low (1.1%), with all events found not to be related to QT or HCQ therapy at a centralized event evaluation. No differences in QT/QTc prolongation and QT-related arrhythmias were observed across different clinical settings, with non-QT-related arrhythmias being more common in the intensive care setting., Conclusion: HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)