Diagnosis and treatment of acute pulmonary embolism

AbstractNovelties include the introduction of sPESI, a simplified index of pulmonary embolism severity, and hs-cTnT as a new biomarker, already in use in clinical practice.Another novelty is the term unstable pulmonary embolism characterized by either the presence of cardiogenic shock or the need for ventilatory support.The main new information is the evidence of a large US study of treatment of unstable pulmonary embolism reporting a 67% reduction in overall mortality of unstable patients when treated with thrombolytic treatment when compared with the anticoagulation in the same unstable patients.The reduction was obtained across all age groups as well as in comorbid patients.Results of the above study clearly show that, in the absence of absolute contraindications, all unstable APE patients, including the elderly and comorbid patients, should be treated with thrombolysis.By contrast, the comparison of thrombolytic and anticoagulation therapy in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism in the PEITHO trial provided unconvincing results, perhaps because of the low mortality rates of the whole group of 1004 patients.Also reported are data from a US study of embolectomies. Caval filter insertion reduced the mortality rates in all analyzed groups. Based on the facts, it is believed another appropriate indication is that of temporary caval filter insertion in patients with severe massive APE, in whom recurrence of pulmonary embolism from pelvic veins has not been ruled out by CT venography.Hemodynamically stable patients should be treated with LMWH or unfractionated heparins, or rivaroxaban or apixaban.At the end of hospitalization a control echocardiography and calculation of residual pulmonary vascular obstruction on a perfusion scan should be performed

Blood pressure response to renal denervation is correlated with baseline blood pressure variability: a patient-level meta-analysis

Background: Sympathetic tone is one of the main determinants of blood pressure (BP) variability and treatment-resistant hypertension. The aim of our study was to assess changes in BP variability after renal denervation (RDN). In addition, on an exploratory basis, we investigated whether baseline BP variability predicted the BP changes after RDN. Methods: We analyzed 24-h BP recordings obtained at baseline and 6 months after RDN in 167 treatmentresistant hypertension patients (40% women; age, 56.7 years; mean 24-h BP, 152/90 mmHg) recruited at 11 expert centers. BP variability was assessed by weighted SD [SD over time weighted for the time interval between consecutive readings (SDiw)], average real variability (ARV), coefficient of variation, and variability independent of the mean (VIM). Results: Mean office and 24-h BP fell by 15.4/6.6 and 5.5/ 3.7 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, systolic/diastolic SDiw and VIM for 24-h SBP/DBP decreased by 1.18/0.63 mmHg (P 0.01) and 0.86/0.42 mmHg (P 0.05), respectively, whereas no significant changes in ARV or coefficient of variation occurred. Furthermore, baseline SDiw (P ¼ 0.0006), ARV (P ¼ 0.01), and VIM (P ¼ 0.04) predicted the decrease in 24-h DBP but not 24-h SBP after RDN. Conclusion: RDN was associated with a decrease in BP variability independent of the BP level, suggesting that responders may derive benefits from the reduction in BP variability as well. Furthermore, baseline DBP variability estimates significantly correlated with mean DBP decrease after RDN. If confirmed in younger patients with less arterial damage, in the absence of the confounding effect of drugs and drug adherence, baseline BP variability may prove a good predictor of BP response to RDN

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711