Male-female differences in thoracic aortic diameters at presentation of acute type A aortic dissection

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a highly lethal event, associated with aortic dilatation. It is not well known if patient height, weight or sex impact the thoracic aortic diameter (TAA) at ATAAD. The study aim was to identify male–female differences in TAA at ATAAD presentation. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study analysed all adult patients who presented with ATAAD between 2007 and 2017 in two tertiary care centres and underwent contrast enhanced computed tomography (CTA) before surgery. Absolute aortic diameters were measured at the sinus of Valsalva (SoV), ascending (AA) and descending thoracic aorta (DA) using double oblique reconstruction, and indexed for body surface area (ASI) and height (AHI). Z-scores were calculated using the Campens formula. Results: In total, 59 % (181/308) of ATAAD patients had CT-scans eligible for measurements, with 82 female and 99 male patients. Females were significantly older than males (65.5 ± 12.4 years versus 60.3 ± 2.3, p = 0.024). Female patients had larger absolute AA diameters than male patients (51.0 mm [47.0–57.0] versus 49.0 mm [45.0–53.0], p = 0.023), and larger ASI and AHI at all three levels. Z-scores for the SoV and AA were significantly higher for female patients (2.99 ± 1.66 versus 1.34 ± 1.77, p &lt; 0.001 and 5.27 [4.38–6.26] versus 4.06 [3.14–5.02], p &lt; 0.001). After adjustment for important clinical factors, female sex remained associated with greater maximal TAA (p = 0.019). Conclusion: Female ATAAD patients had larger absolute ascending aortic diameters than males, implying a distinct timing in disease presentation or selection bias. Translational studies on the aortic wall and studies on growth patterns should further elucidate these sex differences.</p

The first multicentre study on coronary anomalies in the Netherlands: MuSCAT

Background Current guidelines on coronary anomalies are primarily based on expert consensus and a limited number of trials. A gold standard for diagnosis and a consensus on the treatment strategy in this patient group are lacking, especially for patients with an anomalous origin of a coronary artery from the opposite sinus of Valsalva (ACAOS) with an interarterial course. Aim To provide evidence-substantiated recommendations for diagnostic work-up, treatment and follow-up of patients with anomalous coronary arteries. Methods A clinical care pathway for patients with ACAOS was established by six Dutch centres. Prospectively included patients undergo work-up according to protocol using computed tomography (CT) angiography, ischaemia detection, echocardiography and coronary angiography with intracoronary measurements to assess anatomical and physiological characteristics of the ACAOS. Surgical and functional follow-up results are evaluated by CT angiography, ischaemia detection and a quality-of-life questionnaire. Patient inclusion for the first multicentre study on coronary anomalies in the Netherlands started in 2020 and will continue for at least 3 years with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. For patients with a right or left coronary artery originating from the pulmonary artery and coronary arteriovenous fistulas a registry is maintained. Results Primary outcomes are: (cardiac) death, myocardial ischaemia attributable to the ACAOS, re-intervention after surgery and intervention after initially conservative treatment. The influence of work-up examinations on treatment choice is also evaluated. Conclusions Structural evidence for the appropriate management of patients with coronary anomalies, especially (interarterial) ACAOS, is lacking. By means of a structured care pathway in a multicentre setting, we aim to provide an evidence-based strategy for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of this patient group.Cardiolog

Longitudinal changes of thoracic aortic diameters in the general population aged 55 years or older

Objective Longitudinal data on age-related changes in the diameters of the thoracic aorta are scarce. To better understand normal variation and to identify factors influencing this process, we aimed to report male-female-specific and age-specific aortic growth rate in the ageing general population and identify factors associated with growth rate. Methods From the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study, 943 participants (52.0% females, median age at baseline 65 years (62-68)) underwent serial non-enhanced cardiac CT. We measured the diameters of the ascending (AA) and descending aorta (DA) at two time points and expressed absolute and relative differences. Linear mixed effects analysis was performed to identify determinants associated with change in aortic diameters. Results Mean AA diameter at baseline was 37.3±3.6 mm in male population and 34.7±3.2 mm in female population, mean DA diameter was 29.6±2.3 in male population and 26.9±2.2 mm in female population. The median absolute change in diameters during follow-up (mean scan interval 14.1±0.3 years) was 1 mm (0-2) for both the AA and DA. Absolute change per decade in AA diameter was significantly larger in males than in females (0.72 mm/decade (0.00-1.43) vs 0.70 mm/decade (0.00-1.41), p=0.006), as well as absolute change in AD diameter (0.71 mm/decade (0.00-1.42) vs 0.69 mm/decade (0.00-1.36), p=0.008). There was no significant difference between male and female population in relative change of their aortic diameters during follow-up. Age, male sex, higher body mass index (BMI) and higher diastolic blood pressure (DBP) showed a statistically significant independent association with increase in AA and DA diameters over time. Conclusions Some degree of increase in thoracic aortic diameters is typical in both men and women of an aging population. Factors associated with this change in thoracic aortic diameters were sex, age, BMI and DBP

Effect of using the HEART score in patients with chest pain in the emergency department: A Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial

Background: The HEART (History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and initial Troponin) score is an easy-to-apply instrument to stratify patients with chest pain according to their short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), but its effect on daily practice is unknown. Objective: To measure the effect of use of the HEART score on patient outcomes and use of health care resources. Design: Stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial. (Clinical Trials.gov: NCT01756846) Setting: Emergency departments in 9 Dutch hospitals. Patients: Unselected patients with chest pain presenting at emergency departments in 2013 and 2014. Intervention: All hospitals started with usual care. Every 6 weeks, 1 hospital was randomly assigned to switch to "HEART care," during which physicians calculated the HEART score to guide patient management. Measurements: For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MACEs within 6 weeks was set. Other outcomes included use of health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Results: A total of 3648 patients were included (1827 receiving usual care and 1821 receiving HEART care). Six-week incidence of MACEs during HEART care was 1.3% lower than during usual care (upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]). In low-risk patients, incidence of MACEs was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%). No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions, recurrent emergency department visits, outpatient visits, or visits to general practitioners were observed. Limitation: Physicians were hesitant to refrain from admission and diagnostic tests in patients classified as low risk by the HEART score. Conclusion: Using the HEART score during initial assessment of patients with chest pain is safe, but the effect on health care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE: Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS: On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707