Continuous noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in decompensated heart failure

FUNDAMENTO: A avaliação clínico-hemodinâmica à beira do leito e o uso do cateter de artéria pulmonar para a estimativa de dados hemodinâmicos têm sido utilizados na insuficiência cardíaca descompensada. Entretanto, não existem dados com o uso da monitorização hemodinâmica contínua não invasiva. OBJETIVO: Comparar as medidas obtidas com a monitorização hemodinâmica não invasiva com as invasivas em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca descompensada e refratária ao tratamento. MÉTODOS: As medidas hemodinâmicas não invasivas foram obtidas através da monitorização contínua da pressão arterial sistêmica pelo modelo de ondas de pulso (modelflow) e foram comparadas com as medidas obtidas pela passagem do cateter de artéria pulmonar, simultaneamente. RESULTADOS: Foram realizadas 56 medidas em 14 pacientes estudados em dias e horários diferentes. O índice de correlação entre as medidas da pressão arterial sistólica foi de r = 0,26 (IC 95% = 0,00 a 0,49, p = 0,0492) e da diastólica de r = 0,50 (IC 95% = 0,27 a 0,67, p < 0,0001). A correlação foi de r = 0,55 (IC 95% = 0,34 a 0,71, p 0,0001) para o índice cardíaco e de r = 0,32 (IC 95% = 0,06 a 0,53, p = 0,0178) para a resistência vascular sistêmica. CONCLUSÃO: Houve correlação entre as medidas hemodinâmicas não invasivas quando comparadas às medidas do cateter de artéria pulmonar. A monitorização hemodinâmica contínua não invasiva pode ser útil para pacientes internados com insuficiência cardíaca descompensada

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Predictors of low cardiac output in decompensated severe heart failure

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of low cardiac output and mortality in decompensated heart failure. INTRODUCTION: Introduction: Patients with decompensated heart failure have a high mortality rate, especially those patients with low cardiac output. However, this clinical presentation is uncommon, and its management is controversial. METHODS: We studied a cohort of 452 patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure with an ejection fraction of <0.45. Patients underwent clinical-hemodynamic assessment and Chagas disease immunoenzymatic assay. Low cardiac output was defined according to L and C clinical-hemodynamic profiles. Multivariate analyses assessed clinical outcomes. P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean age was 60.1 years; 245 (54.2%) patients were >60 years, and 64.6% were men. Low cardiac output was present in 281 (63%) patients on admission. Chagas disease was the cause of heart failure in 92 (20.4%) patients who had higher B type natriuretic peptide levels (1,978.38 vs. 1,697.64 pg/mL; P = 0.015). Predictors of low cardiac output were Chagas disease (RR: 3.655, P<0.001), lower ejection fraction (RR: 2.414, P<0.001), hyponatremia (RR: 1.618, P = 0.036), and renal dysfunction (RR: 1.916, P = 0.007). Elderly patients were inversely associated with low cardiac output (RR: 0.436, P = 0.001). Predictors of mortality were Chagas disease (RR: 2.286, P<0.001), ischemic etiology (RR: 1.449, P = 0.035), and low cardiac output (RR: 1.419, P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In severe decompensated heart failure, predictors of low cardiac output are Chagas disease, lower ejection fraction, hyponatremia, and renal dysfunction. Additionally, Chagas disease patients have higher B type natriuretic peptide levels and a worse prognosis independent of lower ejection fraction

Uso da monitorização hemodinâmica contínua não invasiva na insuficiência cardíaca descompensada

FUNDAMENTO: A avaliação clínico-hemodinâmica à beira do leito e o uso do cateter de artéria pulmonar para a estimativa de dados hemodinâmicos têm sido utilizados na insuficiência cardíaca descompensada. Entretanto, não existem dados com o uso da monitorização hemodinâmica contínua não invasiva. OBJETIVO: Comparar as medidas obtidas com a monitorização hemodinâmica não invasiva com as invasivas em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca descompensada e refratária ao tratamento. MÉTODOS: As medidas hemodinâmicas não invasivas foram obtidas através da monitorização contínua da pressão arterial sistêmica pelo modelo de ondas de pulso (modelflow) e foram comparadas com as medidas obtidas pela passagem do cateter de artéria pulmonar, simultaneamente. RESULTADOS: Foram realizadas 56 medidas em 14 pacientes estudados em dias e horários diferentes. O índice de correlação entre as medidas da pressão arterial sistólica foi de r = 0,26 (IC 95% = 0,00 a 0,49, p = 0,0492) e da diastólica de r = 0,50 (IC 95% = 0,27 a 0,67, p < 0,0001). A correlação foi de r = 0,55 (IC 95% = 0,34 a 0,71, p 0,0001) para o índice cardíaco e de r = 0,32 (IC 95% = 0,06 a 0,53, p = 0,0178) para a resistência vascular sistêmica. CONCLUSÃO: Houve correlação entre as medidas hemodinâmicas não invasivas quando comparadas às medidas do cateter de artéria pulmonar. A monitorização hemodinâmica contínua não invasiva pode ser útil para pacientes internados com insuficiência cardíaca descompensada

“Traditional” and “Healthy” Dietary Patterns Are Associated with Low Cardiometabolic Risk in Brazilian Subjects

This study aimed at determining the dietary patterns and investigating their association with cardiometabolic risk markers in a brazilian population at risk. This transversal study was carried out with data of 265 patients (n = 123 M/172 W, age 42 ± 16 years) of the Cardiovascular Health Care Program—PROCARDIO-UFV, Brazil—who had their first appointment between 2012 and 2017. A 24-hour recall was applied. The dietary patterns were determined by Principal Component Analysis. Anthropometric, clinical-metabolic, sociodemographic, and lifestyle data were collected through medical record analysis. Five patterns were identified: “Traditional”, “Caloric”, “Unhealthy”, “Healthy,” and “Healthy Snacks”. In bivariate analysis, the “Healthy” pattern was negatively associated with WC (waist circunference), BMI (body mass index), WHR (waist-to-hip ratio), SBP (systolic blood pressure), fasting glucose, TG/HDL, LDL/HDL, and TG/HDL values and positively to HDL. The “Traditional” pattern was positively associated with adiposity indicators (WC, BMI, and WHR) and negatively associated with body fat, TyG (triglyceride-glucose index), HDL, and LDL (P<0.05). However, in adjusted models of Poisson regression, individuals with positive factor score (higher adherence) in the “Traditional” and “Healthy” patterns had less occurrence of abdominal obesity (PR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74–0.99/PR 0.88; 95% CI 0.02–0.76), as well as dyslipidemia (PR 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.51/PR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01–0.27), diabetes (PR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01–0.45/PR 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–021), and hypertension (PR 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.50/PR 0.02; 95% CI 0.01–0.21). A greater adherence to the “Healthy” pattern was associated with lower values to cardiometabolic risk markers and less occurrence of chronic diseases, while the “Traditional” pattern presented contradictory results