Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) ; 25(6): 521-533, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2313695


High blood pressure (BP) and type-2 diabetes (T2DM) are forerunners of chronic kidney disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Home BP telemonitoring (HTM) and urinary peptidomic profiling (UPP) are technologies enabling risk stratification and personalized prevention. UPRIGHT-HTM (NCT04299529) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial with blinded endpoint evaluation designed to assess the efficacy of HTM plus UPP (experimental group) over HTM alone (control group) in guiding treatment in asymptomatic patients, aged 55-75 years, with ≥5 cardiovascular risk factors. From screening onwards, HTM data can be freely accessed by all patients and their caregivers; UPP results are communicated early during follow-up to patients and caregivers in the intervention group, but at trial closure in the control group. From May 2021 until January 2023, 235 patients were screened, of whom 53 were still progressing through the run-in period and 144 were randomized. Both groups had similar characteristics, including average age (62.0 years) and the proportions of African Blacks (81.9%), White Europeans (16.7%), women 56.2%, home (31.2%), and office (50.0%) hypertension, T2DM (36.4%), micro-albuminuria (29.4%), and ECG (9.7%) and echocardiographic (11.5%) left ventricular hypertrophy. Home and office BP were 128.8/79.2 mm Hg and 137.1/82.7 mm Hg, respectively, resulting in a prevalence of white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension of 40.3%, 11.1%, and 25.7%. HTM persisted after randomization (48 681 readings up to 15 January 2023). In conclusion, results predominantly from low-resource sub-Saharan centers proved the feasibility of this multi-ethnic trial. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays and differential recruitment rates across centers.

COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Hypertension , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Blood Pressure , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Research Report , Pandemics , Health Care Reform , Proteomics , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology
Cardiol J ; 28(4): 503-508, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1215655


BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.

COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Heart Arrest , Hospitals , Heart Arrest/diagnosis , Heart Arrest/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective Studies
J Clin Med ; 10(6)2021 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136511


Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical staff, especially in the COVID-19 period. The COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is highly infectious, thus requiring additional measures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Since CPR is a highly aerosol-generating procedure, it carries a substantial risk of viral transmission. We hypothesized that patients with diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 might have worse outcomes following OHCA outcomes compared to non-COVID-19 patients. To raise awareness of this potential problem, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported OHCA in the pandemic period, comparing COVID-19 suspected or diagnosed patients vs. COVID-19 not suspected or diagnosed group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge (SHD). Secondary outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission or survival with favorable neurological outcomes. Data including 4210 patients included in five studies were analyzed. SHD in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 0.5% and 2.6%, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 0.25; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.12, 0.53; p < 0.001). Bystander CPR rate was comparable in the COVID-19 vs. not COVID-19 group (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.22; p = 0.43). Shockable rhythms were observed in 5.7% in COVID-19 patients compared with 37.4% in the non-COVID-19 group (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.96; p = 0.04; I2 = 95%). ROSC in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 13.3% vs. 26.5%, respectively (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81; p < 0.001). SHD with favorable neurological outcome was observed in 0% in COVID-19 vs. 3.1% in non-COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.07, 26.19; p = 0.84). Our meta-analysis suggests that suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 reduces the SHD rate after OHCA, which seems to be due to the lower rate of shockable rhythms in COVID-19 patients, but not due to reluctance to bystander CPR. Future trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results and determine the optimal procedures to increase survival after OHCA in COVID-19 patients.