Search

[Background] A recent trial showed that management driven by prognostic assessment was effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) for acute stable pulmonary embolism (PE). The efficacy and safety of this strategy in each subgroup of risk stratification remains unknown., [Methods] We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the randomized IPEP study to evaluate the effect of a management strategy guided by early use of a prognostic pathway in the low- and intermediate-high risk subgroups defined by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) model. These subgroups were retrospectively identified in the control arm. The primary outcome was LOS. The secondary outcomes were 30-day clinical outcomes., [Results] Of 249 patients assigned to the intervention group, 60 (24%) were classified as low-, and 30 (12%) as intermediate-high risk. Among 249 patients assigned to the control group, 66 (27%) were low-, and 13 (5%) intermediate-high risk. In the low-risk group, the mean LOS was 2.1 (±0.9) days in the intervention group and 5.3 (±2.9) days in the control group (P < 0.001). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (0% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (0% vs. 0%) and PE-related mortality rates (0% vs. 0%), or severe adverse events (0% vs. 1.5%). In the intermediate-high risk group, the mean LOS was 5.3 (±1.8) days in the intervention group and 6.5 (±2.5) days in the control group (P = 0.08). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (3.3% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (6.7% vs. 7.7%) and PE-related mortality rates (6.7% vs. 7.7%), or severe adverse events (16.7% vs. 15.4%)., [Conclusion] The use of a prognostic assessment and management pathway was effective in reducing the LOS for acute PE without comprising safety across subgroups of risk stratification., This work was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI15/00207) and cofinanced by the European Development Regional Fund “A way to achieve Europe.”

[ES] La Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR) ha elaborado este documento de recomendaciones sobre la vacuna para la COVID-19 en las enfermedades respiratorias, con el objetivo de ayudar al personal sanitario en la toma de decisiones sobre cómo actuar en la vacunación de estos pacientes. Las recomendaciones han sido elaboradas por un grupo de expertos en la materia, tras la revisión de la literatura recopilada hasta el 7 de marzo del 2021, y de la información aportada por distintas sociedades científicas, agencias del medicamento y estrategias de organismos gubernamentales hasta esa fecha. Podemos concluir que las vacunas para la COVID-19 no solo son seguras y eficaces, sino que, en aquellos pacientes vulnerables con enfermedades respiratorias crónicas, son prioritarias. Además, la implicación activa de los profesionales sanitarios que manejan estas patologías en la estrategia de vacunación es clave para lograr una buena adherencia y coberturas vacunales elevadas., [EN] The Spanish Society of Pneumonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) has elaborated this document of recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in patients with respiratory diseases aimed to help healthcare personnel make decisions about how to act in case of COVID-19 vaccination in these patients. The recommendations have been developed by a group of experts in this field after reviewing the materials published up to March 7, 2021, the information provided by different scientific societies, drug agencies and the strategies of the governmental bodies up to this date. We can conclude that COVID-19 vaccines are not only safe and effective, but also prior in vulnerable patients with chronic respiratory diseases. In addition, an active involvement of healthcare professionals, who manage these diseases, in the vaccination strategy is the key to achieve good adherence and high vaccination coverage.

[EN]: [Background]: There is some controversy about the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the incidence of cardiovascular events (CVE). However, the incidence of CVE among patients with both obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) ans resistant hypertension (HR) has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the long-term effect of CPAP treatment in patients with RH and OSA on the incidence of CVE. [Methods]: Multi-center, observational and prospective study of patients with moderate-severe OSA and RH. All the patients were followed up every 3–6 months and the CVE incidence was measured. Patients adherent to CPAP (at least 4 h/day) were compared with those with not adherent or those who had not been prescribed CPAP. [Results]: Valid data were obtained from 163 patients with 64 CVE incidents. Treatment with CPAP was offered to 82%. After 58 months of follow-up, 58.3% of patients were adherent to CPAP. Patients not adherent to CPAP presented a non-significant increase in the total CVE incidence (HR:1.6; 95%CI: 0.96–2.7; p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis showed that patients not adherent to CPAP had a significant increase in the incidence of cerebrovascular events (HR: 3.1; CI95%: 1.07–15.1; p = 0.041) and hypertensive crises (HR: 5.1; CI95%: 2.2–11.6; p = 0.006), but the trend went in the opposite direction with respect to coronary events (HR: 0.22; CI95%: 0.05–1.02; p = 0.053). [Conclusions]: In patients with RH and moderate-severe OSA, an uneffective treatment with CPAP showed a trend toward an increase in the incidence of CVE (particularly neurovascular events and hypertensive crises) without any changes with respect to coronary events., [ES]: [Antecedentes]: Existe cierta controversia sobre el efecto de la presión positiva continua en las vías respiratorias (CPAP) sobre la incidencia de eventos cardiovasculares (ECV). Sin embargo, no se ha evaluado la incidencia de ECV en los pacientes con apnea obstructiva del sueño (AOS) e hipertensión resistente (HR). Nuestro objetivo fue analizar el efecto a largo plazo del tratamiento con CPAP en pacientes con HR y AOS en la incidencia de ECV. [Métodos]: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional y prospectivo de pacientes con AOS y HR. Cada paciente acudió a revisión cada 3-6 meses y se midió la incidencia de ECV. Se compararon los pacientes con buena adherencia a la CPAP (al menos 4 h/día) con aquellos con mala adherencia o aquellos a quienes no se les había indicado la CPAP. [Resultados]: Se obtuvieron datos válidos de 163 pacientes con 64 eventos de ECV. Se ofreció tratamiento con CPAP al 82%. Después de 58 meses de seguimiento, el 58,3% de los pacientes presentaron buena adherencia a la CPAP. Los pacientes con mala adherencia o sin prescripción de CPAP presentaron un aumento no significativo en la incidencia total de ECV (HR: 1,6; IC 95%: 0,96-2,7; p = 0,07). Un análisis de sensibilidad mostró que los pacientes con mala adherencia a la CPAP tuvieron un aumento significativo en la incidencia de eventos cerebrovasculares (HR: 3,1; IC 95%: 1,07-15,1; p = 0,041) y crisis hipertensivas (HR: 5,1; IC 95%: 2,2-11,6; p = 0,006), pero la tendencia fue en la dirección opuesta con respecto a los eventos coronarios (HR: 0,22; IC 95%: 0,05-1,02; p = 0,053). [Conclusiones]: En pacientes con HR y AOS moderada o grave, un tratamiento ineficaz con CPAP mostró una tendencia hacia un aumento en la incidencia de ECV (particularmente eventos neurovasculares y crisis hipertensivas), sin ningún cambio con respecto a los eventos coronarios.

Background: There is some controversy about the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the incidence of cardiovascular events (CVE). However, the incidence of CVE among patients with both obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) ans resistant hypertension (HR) has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the long-term effect of CPAP treatment in patients with RH and OSA on the incidence of CVE. Methods: Multi-center, observational and prospective study of patients with moderate-severe OSA and RH. All the patients were followed up every 3-6 months and the CVE incidence was measured. Patients adherent to CPAP (at least 4h/day) were compared with those with not adherent or those who had not been prescribed CPAP. Results: Valid data were obtained from 163 patients with 64 CVE incidents. Treatment with CPAP was offered to 82%. After 58 months of follow-up, 58.3% of patients were adherent to CPAP. Patients not adherent to CPAP presented a non-significant increase in the total CVE incidence (HR:1.6; 95%CI: 0.96-2.7; p=0.07). A sensitivity analysis showed that patients not adherent to CPAP had a significant increase in the incidence of cerebrovascular events (HR: 3.1; CI95%: 1.07-15.1; p=0.041) and hypertensive crises (HR: 5.1; CI95%: 2.2-11.6; p=0.006), but the trend went in the opposite direction with respect to coronary events (HR: 0.22; CI95%: 0.05-1.02; p=0.053). Conclusions: In patients with RH and moderate-severe OSA, an uneffective treatment with CPAP showed a trend toward an increase in the incidence of CVE (particularly neurovascular events and hypertensive crises) without any changes with respect to coronary events.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an independent cause of resistant hypertension (RH) but its association with refractory hypertension (RfH), a recently described form of severe hypertension, has not yet been investigated. This study seeks to analyze the association between the presence and severity of OSA/OSA syndrome with RfH and to compare it with a group of patients with OSA/OSA syndrome and RH. We conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study of consecutive patients diagnosed with RH by means of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Those patients with blood pressure levels ≥130/80 mm Hg, despite taking at least 5 antihypertensive drugs, were considered to have true RfH. All patients underwent a sleep study and completed a detailed clinical history related to OSA, current medication, and cardiovascular diseases. Overall, 229 patients were included (mean age, 58.3 years; 63% male), of whom 42 (18.3%) satisfied the criteria for RfH. Compared with those with RH, patients with RfH had a higher cardiovascular risk profile, higher blood pressure measurements, and a 2-fold greater risk of having both severe OSA (odds ratio, 2.1, with a prevalence of apnea-hypopnea index ≥15, 95.2% and apnea-hypopnea index ≥30, 64.3%) and OSA syndrome (apnea-hypopnea index ≥5+Epworth Sleepiness Scale >10; odds ratio, 1.9; 52.4% versus 37.3%; P=0.023), as well as higher OSA severity (apnea-hypopnea index, 41.8 versus 33.8 events/h; P=0.026). Patients with RfH had an even greater prevalence and severity of OSA and OSA syndrome than RH patients, highlighting the need to identify these patients to refer them to sleep units on a preferential basis.