Fibroelastoma en el ventrículo izquierdo: un hallazgo muy poco frecuente

The evaluation of cardiac masses is a relatively frequent clinical problem for cardiac imaging techniques. We present the case of a cardiac mass with an unusual location in which imaging techniques made it possible to guide the diagnosis, which, how could it be otherwise, was confirmed in surgery.La valoración de las masas cardíacas es un problema clínico relativamente frecuente para las técnicas de imagen cardíca. Presentamos el caso de una masa cardíaca con localización inusual en el que las técnicas de imagen permitieron orientar el diagnóstico, que como no puede ser de otro modo, se confirmó en la cirugía

Regional differences in STEMI care in Spain. Data from the ACI-SEC Infarction Code Registry

Introduction and objectives: Geographical and organizational differences between different autonomous communities (AC) can generate differences in care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). A total of 17 heart attack code programs have been compared in terms of incidence rate, clinical characteristics, reperfusion therapy, delay to reperfusion, and 30-day mortality. Methods: National prospective observational study (83 centers included in 17 infarction networks). The recruitment period was 3 months (April 1 to June 30, 2019) with clinical follow-up at 30 days. Results: 4366 patients with STEMI were included. The incidence rate was variable between different AC (P <.0001), as was gender (P =.003) and the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (P <.0001). Reperfusion treatment was primary angioplasty (range 77.5%-97.8%), fibrinolysis ( range 0%-12.9%) or no treatment (range 2.2%- 13.5%). The analysis of the delay to reperfusion showed significant differences (P <.001) for all the intervals analyzed. There were significant differences in 30-days mortality that disappeared after adjusting for clinical and healthcare network characteristics. Conclusions: Large differences in STEMI care have been detected between the different AC, in terms of incidence rate, clinical characteristics, reperfusion treatment, delay until reperfusion, and 30-day mortality. The differences in mortality disappeared after adjusting for the characteristics of the patient and the care network

Clinical guide of the Spanish Society of Nephrology on the prevention and treatment of peritoneal infection in peritoneal dialysis

[Resumen] Las infecciones peritoneales siguen constituyendo una complicación muy relevante de la diálisis peritoneal, por su incidencia todavía elevada y por sus importantes consecuencias clínicas, en términos de mortalidad, fracaso de la técnica y costes para el sistema sanitario. Las prácticas de prevención y tratamiento de esta complicación muestran una notable heterogeneidad derivada, entre otros factores, de la complejidad del problema y de la escasez de evidencia clínica que permitan responder de manera clara a muchas de las dudas planteadas. El propósito de este documento es proporcionar una revisión completa y actualizada de los métodos de diagnóstico, prevención y tratamiento de estas infecciones. El documento se ha elaborado tomando como referencia de partida la guía más reciente de la Sociedad Internacional de Diálisis Peritoneal (2016). Mientras que para el capítulo diagnóstico se ha adoptado una estructura más narrativa, el análisis de las medidas de prevención y tratamiento ha seguido una metodología sistemática (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), que especifica el nivel de evidencia y la fuerza de las sugerencias y recomendaciones propuestas, y facilita actualizaciones futuras de la guía. La gran extensión y numerosas recomendaciones o sugerencias emanadas de la revisión ponen de manifiesto la complejidad y gran número de facetas a tener en cuenta para un adecuado abordaje de esta importante complicación de la diálisis peritoneal.[Abstract] Peritoneal infections still represent a most feared complication of chronic peritoneal dialysis, due to their high incidence and relevant clinical consequences, including direct mortality, technique failure and a significant burden for the health system. The practices for prevention and treatment of this complication show a remarkable heterogeneity emerging, among other factors, from the complexity of the problem and from a paucity of quality evidence which could permit to respond clearly to many of the raised questions. The purpose of this document is to provide a complete and updated review of the main methods of diagnosis, prevention and treatment of these infections. The document has been elaborated taking as a reference the most recent guidelines of the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis (2016). The diagnostic considerations are presented in a narrative style while, for prevention and therapy, we have used a systematic methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), which specifies the level of evidence and the strength of the proposed suggestions and recommendations and facilitates future updates of the document. The length of the document and the many suggestions and recommendations coming out of the review underline the large number and the complexity of the factors to be taken into consideration for an adequate approach to this complication of peritoneal dialysis

Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la actividad asistencial en cardiología intervencionista en España

Introduction and objectives: The COVID-19 epidemic and the declaration of the state of alarm have led to a decrease in healthcare activity in interventional cardiology units. The objective of this study is to quantify these changes in activity, with special interest in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: A telematic survey of 81 centers involved in STEMI networks in the 17 autonomous communities of Spain. Information was collected on diagnostic activity, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), structural interventions, and PCI in STEMI on changes in the organization of STEMI networks, and on the prevalence of COVID-19 among interventional cardiologists. Data was compared for the week of February 24 through March 1 (before the outbreak) and for the week of March 16 through March 22 (during the outbreak). Results: Response has been obtained from 73 centers (90%). A very significant decrease in the number of diagnostic procedures (─56%), PCI (─48%), structural interventions (─81%) and PCI in STEMI (─40%) has been observed. A slight increase in the use of pharmacological thrombolysis has been reported, although primary angioplasty remains the leading reperfusion strategy. Up to 5% of interventional cardiologists (17) had COVID-19. Conclusions: An important reduction in the activity in interventional cardiology has been observed during the COVID-19 epidemic. Likewise, a great decrease has been detected in the number of patients treated in the STEMI networks, with the risk of increased morbidity and mortality that this represents. Scientific societies and health authorities have to promote that patients presenting STEMI compatible symptoms proceed with no delay to access the health system to receive reperfusion treatment in an appropriate way.Introducción y objetivos: La epidemia de COVID-19 y la declaración del estado de alarma han propiciado una disminución en la actividad en la cardiología intervencionista. El objetivo de este estudio es cuantificar esta disminución, con especial interés en el funcionamiento del código infarto. Métodos: Se realizó una encuesta telemática a 81 centros de las 17 comunidades autónomas españolas con procedimientos de código infarto. Se recogió información sobre la actividad diagnóstica, el intervencionismo coronario, el intervencionismo estructural y el intervencionismo en el seno del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST (IAMCEST) sobre cambios en la organización de las redes del infarto y sobre la afección por COVID-19 de las plantillas de cardiología intervencionista. Se compararon 2 periodos: uno entre el 24 de febrero y el 1 de marzo (antes del inicio de la pandemia en España) y el otro entre el 16 y el 22 de marzo (durante la pandemia). Resultados: Se obtuvo respuesta de 73 centros (90%) que evidenció una disminución significativa en el número de procedimientos diagnósticos (─56%), terapéuticos coronarios (─48%), terapéuticos estructurales (─81%) y en el seno del IAMCEST (─40%). Se indicó un leve incremento en el uso de trombolisis. Se diagnosticó infección por COVID-19 en 17 cardiólogos intervencionistas (5%). Conclusiones: Se observó una reducción importante de la actividad asistencial durante la epidemia de COVID-19 y una gran disminución en el número de pacientes tratados con IAMCEST, con el riesgo de incremento de morbimortalidad que esto supone. Las sociedades científicas y autoridades sanitarias deberían promover que los pacientes con síntomas compatibles con IAMCEST demanden asistencia al sistema sanitario para poder recibir el tratamiento de reperfusión de forma adecuada

Impacto de la COVID-19 en el tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST. La experiencia Española

The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.S

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective