Hypertensive disorders in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy: insights from the ESC EORP PPCM Registry

Aims: Hypertensive disorders occur in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). How often hypertensive disorders co-exist, and to what extent they impact outcomes, is less clear. We describe differences in phenotype and outcomes in women with PPCM with and without hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. Methods: The European Society of Cardiology PPCM Registry enrolled women with PPCM from 2012-2018. Three groups were examined: 1) women without hypertension (‘PPCM-noHTN’); 2) women with hypertension but without pre-eclampsia (‘PPCM-HTN’); 3) women with pre-eclampsia (‘PPCM-PE’). Maternal (6-month) and neonatal outcomes were compared. Results: Of 735 women included, 452 (61.5%) had PPCM-noHTN, 99 (13.5%) had PPCM-HTN and 184 (25.0%) had PPCM-PE. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had more severe symptoms (NYHA IV in 44.4% and 29.9%, p<0.001), more frequent signs of heart failure (pulmonary rales in 70.7% and 55.4%, p=0.002), higher baseline LVEF (32.7% and 30.7%, p=0.005) and smaller left ventricular end diastolic diameter (57.4mm [±6.7] and 59.8mm [±8.1], p<0.001). There were no differences in the frequencies of death from any cause, re-hospitalization for any cause, stroke, or thromboembolic events. Compared to women with PPCM-noHTN, women with PPCM-PE had a greater likelihood of left ventricular recovery (LVEF≥50%) (adjusted OR 2.08 95% CI 1.21-3.57) and an adverse neonatal outcome (composite of termination, miscarriage, low birth weight or neonatal death) (adjusted OR 2.84 95% CI 1.66-4.87). Conclusion: Differences exist in phenotype, recovery of cardiac function and neonatal outcomes according to hypertensive status in women with PPCM

Correction: Epidemiology and outcomes of early-onset AKI in COVID-19-related ARDS in comparison with non-COVID-19-related ARDS: insights from two prospective global cohort studies (Critical Care, (2023), 27, 1, (3), 10.1186/s13054-022-04294-5)

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified that the collaborating authors part of the collaborating author group CCCC Consortium was missing. The collaborating author group is available and included as Additional file 1 in this article

Stroke in critically ill patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19: Disparities between low-middle and high-income countries

Purpose: We aimed to compare the incidence of stroke in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) versus high-income countries (HICs) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its impact on in-hospital mortality. Methods: International observational study conducted in 43 countries. Stroke and mortality incidence rates and rate ratios (IRR) were calculated per admitted days using Poisson regression. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address the HICs vs. LMICs imbalance for confounders. Results: 23,738 patients [20,511(86.4 %) HICs vs. 3,227(13.6 %) LMICs] were included. The incidence stroke/1000 admitted-days was 35.7 (95 %CI = 28.4–44.9) LMICs and 17.6 (95 %CI = 15.8–19.7) HICs; ischemic 9.47 (95 %CI = 6.57–13.7) LMICs, 1.97 (95 %CI = 1.53, 2.55) HICs; hemorrhagic, 7.18 (95 %CI = 4.73–10.9) LMICs, and 2.52 (95 %CI = 2.00–3.16) HICs; unspecified stroke type 11.6 (95 %CI = 7.75–17.3) LMICs, 8.99 (95 %CI = 7.70–10.5) HICs. In regression with IPW, LMICs vs. HICs had IRR = 1.78 (95 %CI = 1.31–2.42, p < 0.001). Patients from LMICs were more likely to die than those from HICs [43.6% vs 29.2 %; Relative Risk (RR) = 2.59 (95 %CI = 2.29–2.93), p < 0.001)]. Patients with stroke were more likely to die than those without stroke [RR = 1.43 (95 %CI = 1.19–1.72), p < 0.001)]. Conclusions: Stroke incidence was low in HICs and LMICs although the stroke risk was higher in LMICs. Both LMIC status and stroke increased the risk of death. Improving early diagnosis of stroke and redistribution of healthcare resources should be a priority. Trial registration: ACTRN12620000421932 registered on 30/03/2020