The impact of the multidisciplinary Endocarditis Team on the management of infective endocarditis

Background: In their latest guidelines for infective endocarditis (IE) (2015), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) introduced the implementation of the Endocarditis Team (ET) to facilitate the management of IE. This study presents our experiences and the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of the ET on the management of IE. Methods: From 2016–2020, data of all patients with suspected IE referred to the ET were prospectively collected. The final diagnosis was defined by the ET as either rejected, possible or definite IE. Diagnostic impact was scored as any change in initial diagnosis, the frequency of additional diagnostic tests advised by the ET and any change in diagnosis after these tests. Therapeutic impact was scored as any change in antibiotic therapy or change from conservative to invasive therapy or vice versa. Results: A total of 321 patients (median age 67 [55–77] years, 71% male) were enrolled. The final diagnosis was rejected IE in 47 (15%), possible IE in 34 (11%) and definite IE in 240 (75%) patients. A change of initial diagnosis was seen in 53/321(17%) patients. Additional microbiological tests were advised in 69/321 (21%) patients, and additional imaging tests in 136/321 (42%) patients, which resulted in subsequent change in diagnosis in 23/321 (7%) patients. Any change in antibiotic treatment was advised in 135/321 (42%) patients, and change from initial conservative to additional surgical treatment in 15/321 (5%) patients. Conclusion: The ET had a clear impact on the therapeutic policy for patients with suspected IE and is useful in the management of this life-threatening disease. Broad implementation is warranted

Clinical presentation, disease course, and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease: a cohort study across 18 countries

Aims Patients with cardiac disease are considered high risk for poor outcomes following hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in associations between various heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Methods and results We used data from the CAPACITY-COVID registry and LEOSS study. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to assess the association between different types of pre-existing heart disease and in-hospital mortality. A total of 16 511 patients with COVID-19 were included (21.1% aged 66-75 years; 40.2% female) and 31.5% had a history of heart disease. Patients with heart disease were older, predominantly male, and often had other comorbid conditions when compared with those without. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease (29.7%; n= 1545 vs. 15.9%; n= 1797). However, following multivariable adjustment, this difference was not significant [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.15; P = 0.12 (corrected for multiple testing)]. Associations with in-hospital mortality by heart disease subtypes differed considerably, with the strongest association for heart failure (aRR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30; P <0.018) particularly for severe (New York Heart Association class III/IV) heart failure (aRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; P < 0.018). None of the other heart disease subtypes, including ischaemic heart disease, remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Serious cardiac complications were diagnosed in <1% of patients. Conclusion Considerable heterogeneity exists in the strength of association between heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Of all patients with heart disease, those with heart failure are at greatest risk of death when hospitalized with COVID-19. Serious cardiac complications are rare during hospitalization. [GRAPHICS]

Clinical presentation, disease course, and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease : a cohort study across 18 countries

AIMS: Patients with cardiac disease are considered high risk for poor outcomes following hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in associations between various heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the CAPACITY-COVID registry and LEOSS study. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to assess the association between different types of pre-existing heart disease and in-hospital mortality. A total of 16 511 patients with COVID-19 were included (21.1% aged 66-75 years; 40.2% female) and 31.5% had a history of heart disease. Patients with heart disease were older, predominantly male, and often had other comorbid conditions when compared with those without. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease (29.7%; n = 1545 vs. 15.9%; n = 1797). However, following multivariable adjustment, this difference was not significant [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.15; P = 0.12 (corrected for multiple testing)]. Associations with in-hospital mortality by heart disease subtypes differed considerably, with the strongest association for heart failure (aRR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30; P < 0.018) particularly for severe (New York Heart Association class III/IV) heart failure (aRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; P < 0.018). None of the other heart disease subtypes, including ischaemic heart disease, remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Serious cardiac complications were diagnosed in <1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Considerable heterogeneity exists in the strength of association between heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Of all patients with heart disease, those with heart failure are at greatest risk of death when hospitalized with COVID-19. Serious cardiac complications are rare during hospitalization

Clinical presentation, disease course, and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease: a cohort study across 18 countries

AIMS: Patients with cardiac disease are considered high risk for poor outcomes following hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in associations between various heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the CAPACITY-COVID registry and LEOSS study. Multivariable Poisson regression models were fitted to assess the association between different types of pre-existing heart disease and in-hospital mortality. A total of 16 511 patients with COVID-19 were included (21.1% aged 66-75 years; 40.2% female) and 31.5% had a history of heart disease. Patients with heart disease were older, predominantly male, and often had other comorbid conditions when compared with those without. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease (29.7%; n = 1545 vs. 15.9%; n = 1797). However, following multivariable adjustment, this difference was not significant [adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.15; P = 0.12 (corrected for multiple testing)]. Associations with in-hospital mortality by heart disease subtypes differed considerably, with the strongest association for heart failure (aRR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30; P < 0.018) particularly for severe (New York Heart Association class III/IV) heart failure (aRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; P < 0.018). None of the other heart disease subtypes, including ischaemic heart disease, remained significant after multivariable adjustment. Serious cardiac complications were diagnosed in <1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Considerable heterogeneity exists in the strength of association between heart disease subtypes and in-hospital mortality. Of all patients with heart disease, those with heart failure are at greatest risk of death when hospitalized with COVID-19. Serious cardiac complications are rare during hospitalization

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUN

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

Bococizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin- kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and reduces levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of bococizumab in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS In two parallel, multinational trials with different entry criteria for LDL cholesterol levels, we randomly assigned the 27,438 patients in the combined trials to receive bococizumab (at a dose of 150 mg) subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization, or cardiovascular death; 93% of the patients were receiving statin therapy at baseline. The trials were stopped early after the sponsor elected to discontinue the development of bococizumab owing in part to the development of high rates of antidrug antibodies, as seen in data from other studies in the program. The median follow-up was 10 months. RESULTS At 14 weeks, patients in the combined trials had a mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of -56.0% in the bococizumab group and +2.9% in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -59.0 percentage points (P<0.001) and a median reduction from baseline of 64.2% (P<0.001). In the lower-risk, shorter-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥70 mg per deciliter [1.8 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 7 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 173 patients each in the bococizumab group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.22; P = 0.94). In the higher-risk, longer-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥100 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 12 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 179 and 224 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; P = 0.02). The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combined trials was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P = 0.08). Injection-site reactions were more common in the bococizumab group than in the placebo group (10.4% vs. 1.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In two randomized trials comparing the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo, bococizumab had no benefit with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events in the trial involving lower-risk patients but did have a significant benefit in the trial involving higher-risk patients

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding