Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI were assigned to a strategy of either PCI of all other suitable stenoses or no further revascularization. At 3 years, the risk of cardiovascular death or new MI was lower with complete revascularization.

No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18–85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01–4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. Abbott Vascular.

Background The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is a well-established tool to assess lower extremity physical performance status. Its predictive ability for all-cause mortality has been sparsely reported, but with conflicting results in different subsets of participants. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between SPPB score and all-cause mortality. Methods Articles were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BioMed Central between July and September 2015 and updated in January 2016. Inclusion criteria were observational studies; >50 participants; stratification of population according to SPPB value; data on all-cause mortality; English language publications. Twenty-four articles were selected from available evidence. Data of interest (i.e., clinical characteristics, information after stratification of the sample into four SPPB groups [0–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12]) were retrieved from the articles and/or obtained by the study authors. The odds ratio (OR) and/or hazard ratio (HR) was obtained for all-cause mortality according to SPPB category (with SPPB scores 10–12 considered as reference) with adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index. Results Standardized data were obtained for 17 studies ( n  = 16,534, mean age 76 ± 3 years). As compared to SPPB scores 10–12, values of 0–3 (OR 3.25, 95%CI 2.86–3.79), 4–6 (OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.92–2.39), and 7–9 (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.32–1.71) were each associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. The association between poor performance on SPPB and all-cause mortality remained highly consistent independent of follow-up length, subsets of participants, geographic area, and age of the population. Random effects meta-regression showed that OR for all-cause mortality with SPPB values 7–9 was higher in the younger population, diabetics, and men. Conclusions An SPPB score lower than 10 is predictive of all-cause mortality. The systematic implementation of the SPPB in clinical practice settings may provide useful prognostic information about the risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, the SPPB could be used as a surrogate endpoint of all-cause mortality in trials needing to quantify benefit and health improvements of specific treatments or rehabilitation programs. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42015024916).

Background Biomarkers can be used to detect the presence of endothelial and/or alveolar epithelial injuries in case of ARDS. Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion protein-1 (VCAM-1), P-selectin and E-selectin are biomarkers of endothelial injury, whereas the receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) reflects alveolar epithelial injury. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether the plasma concentration of the above-mentioned biomarkers was different 1) in survivors and non-survivors of COVID-19-related ARDS and 2) in COVID-19-related and classical ARDS. Methods This prospective study was performed in two COVID-19-dedicated Intensive Care Units (ICU) and one non-COVID-19 ICU at Ferrara University Hospital. A cohort of 31 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS and a cohort of 11 patients with classical ARDS were enrolled. Ang-2, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE were determined with a bead-based multiplex immunoassay at three time points: inclusion in the study (T1), after 7 ± 2 days (T2) and 14 ± 2 days (T3). The primary outcome was to evaluate the plasma trend of the biomarker levels in survivors and non-survivors. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the differences in respiratory mechanics variables and gas exchanges between survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, we compared the plasma levels of the biomarkers at T1 in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and classical ARDS. Results In COVID-19-related ARDS, the plasma levels of Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were statistically higher in non-survivors than survivors, (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively), whereas those of P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE did not differ. Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were predictors of mortality (AUROC 0.650 and 0.717, respectively). At T1, RAGE and P-selectin levels were higher in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS. Ang-2, ICAM-1 and E-selectin were lower in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS (all p < 0.001). Conclusions COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by an early pulmonary endothelial injury, as detected by Ang-2 and ICAM-1. COVID-19 ARDS and classical ARDS exhibited a different expression of biomarkers, suggesting different pathological pathways. Trial registration NCT04343053 , Date of registration: April 13, 2020

Hypertension is associated with more severe disease and adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Recent investigations have indicated that hypertension might be an independent predictor of outcomes in COVID-19 patients regardless of other cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities. We explored the significance of coronary calcifications in 694 hypertensive patients in the Score-COVID registry, an Italian multicenter study conducted during the first pandemic wave in the Western world (March-April 2020). A total of 1565 patients admitted with RNA-PCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs and chest computed tomography (CT) at hospital admission were included in the study. Clinical outcomes and cardiovascular calcifications were analyzed independently by a research core lab. Hypertensive patients had a different risk profile than nonhypertensive patients, with more cardiovascular comorbidities. The deceased hypertensive patients had a greater coronary calcification burden at the level of the anterior descending coronary artery. Hypertension status and the severity cutoffs of coronary calcifications were used to stratify the clinical outcomes. For every 100-mm increase in coronary calcium volume, hospital mortality in hypertensive patients increased by 8%, regardless of sex, age, diabetes, creatinine, and lung interstitial involvement. The coronary calcium score contributes to stratifying the risk of complications in COVID-19 patients. Cardiovascular calcifications appear to be a promising imaging marker for providing pathophysiological insight into cardiovascular risk factors and COVID-19 outcomes.

Atherosclerosis is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease that can cause coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, depending on which arteries are affected. At the beginning of atherosclerosis plasma lipoproteins accumulate in the sub-endothelial space. In response, monocytes migrate from the circulation through the endothelium into the intima where they differentiate into macrophages. These early events trigger a complex immune response that eventually involves many cellular subtypes of both innate and adaptive immunity. The Notch signaling pathway is an evolutionary conserved cell signaling system that mediates cell-to-cell communication. Recent studies have revealed that Notch modulate atherosclerosis by controlling macrophages polarization into M1 or M2 subtypes. Furthermore, it is known that Notch signaling controls differentiation and activity of T-helper and cytotoxic T-cells in inflammatory diseases. In this review, we will discuss the role of Notch in modulating immunity in the context of atherosclerosis and whether targeting Notch may represent a therapeutic strategy.

Data for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial. In the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087. 1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65–0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52–0·10; p=0·047). Our findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Spanish Heart Foundation.

Background. The study of coronary microcirculation has gained increasing consideration and importance in cath lab. Despite the increase of evidence, its use still remains very limited. QFR is a novel angio-based approach for the evaluation of coronary stenosis. The aim of our study was to use the QFR assessment in stable patients to recreate the IMR formula and to correlate the result of the two techniques. Methods. From June 1, 2019, to February 29, 2019, 200 patients with CCS and indication of coronary artery angiography and referred to the cath lab of the University Hospital of Ferrara (Italy) were enrolled. After baseline coronary angiogram, quantitative flow ratio, fractional flow reserve, and index of microcirculatory resistance evaluation were performed. Results. Pearson correlation (r) between angio-based index of microcirculatory resistance (A-IMR) and IMR 0.32 with R2 = 0.098, P=0.03: McNemar test showed a difference between the two tests of 6.82% with 95% CI from –12.05% to 22.89%, which is not significant (P=0.60). Bland and Altman plot showed a mean difference of 23.3 (from −26.5 to 73.1). Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were 70%, 83.3%, 75%, and 70% for A-IMR value >44.2. The area under the ROC curve for A-IMR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.61–0.88, P=0.0003). Conclusion. We have validated for the first time the formula of the A-IMR, a tool for the calculation of microvascular resistance which does not require the use of pressure guides and the induction of hyperemia.

Return to work after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a leading cause of death globally, is a multidimensional process influenced by clinical, psychological, social and occupational factors, the single impact of which, however, is still not well defined. The objective of this study was to investigate these 4 factors on return to work (RTW) within 365 days after AMI in a homogeneous cohort of patients who had undergone an urgent coronary angioplasty. We studied 102 patients, in employment at the time of AMI (88.24% of men), admitted to the Department of Cardiology of the University-Hospital of Ferrara between March 2015 to December 2016. Demographical and clinical characteristics were obtained from the cardiological records. After completing an interview on social and occupational variables and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HADS) questionnaire, patients underwent exercise capacity measurement and spirometry. Of the 102 patients, only 12 (12.76%) held a university degree, 68.63% were employees and 31.37% self-employed. The median number of sick-leave days was 44 (IQR 33-88). At day 30, 78.5% of all subjects had not returned to work, at day 60, 40.8% and at day 365 only 7.3% had not resumed working. At univariate analyses, educational degree (p = 0.026), self-employment status (p = 0.0005), white collar professional category (p = 0.020) and HADS depression score were significant for earlier return to work. The multivariate analysis confirms that having a university degree, being self-employed and presenting a lower value of HADS depression score increase the probability of a quicker return to work. These findings suggest that the strongest predictors of returning to work within 1 year after discharge for an acute myocardial infarction are related more to socio-occupational than to clinical parameters.

Background: Deficient interferon responses have been proposed as one of the relevant mechanisms prompting severe manifestations of COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the interferon (IFN)-α levels in a cohort of COVID-19 patients in relation to severity, evolution of the clinical manifestations and immune/inflammatory profile. Methods: This is prospective study recruiting consecutive hospitalized patients with respiratory failure associated with SARS-COV-2 infection and matched controls. After enrollment, patients were assessed every 7 ± 2 days for additional 2 consecutive visits, for a total of 21 days. The severity of the clinical condition was ranked based on the level of respiratory support required. At each time-point blood samples were obtained to assess immune cells and mediators by multiplex immunoassay. Results: Fifty-four COVD-19 and 11 control patients matched for severity were enrolled. At recruitment, lower levels of blood IFN-α were found in COVID-19 patients compared to controls (3.8-fold difference, p < 0.01). Improvements in COVID-19 severity were paralleled by a significant increase of blood IFN-α levels. A significant increase in blood IFN-α was found over the study period in survivors (70% of the study population). A similar trend was found for blood IFN-β with IFN-β levels below the threshold of detectability in a substantial proportion of subjects. Significantly higher values of blood lymphocytes and lower levels of IL-10 were found at each time point in patients who survived compared to patients who died. In patients who clinically improved and survived during the study, we found an inverse association between IL-10 and IFN-α levels. Conclusion: The study identifies a blood immune profile defined by deficient IFN-α levels associated with increased IL-10 expression in patients progressing to severe/life threatening COVID-19 conditions, suggesting the involvement of immunological pathways that could be target of pharmacological intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04343053.