ABSTRACT
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to enter human cells. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) are associated with ACE-2 upregulation. We hypothesized that antecedent use of ACEI/ARB may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 4 regions of Italy, and restricted analyses to those ≥50 years of age. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Among these 781 patients, 133 (17.0%) used an ARB and 171 (21.9%) used an ACEI. While neither sex nor smoking status differed by user groups, patients on ACEI/ARB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (118/781) and increased with age (PTrend<0.0001). The crude odds ratios (ORs) for death for ACEI users and ARB users were 0.98, 95% CI, 0.60-1.60, P=0.9333, and 1.13, 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P=0.6385, respectively. After adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure, antecedent ACEI administration was associated with reduced mortality (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98, P=0.0436); a similar, but weaker trend was observed for ARB administration (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.07, P=0.0796). Conclusions In those aged ≥50 years hospitalized with COVID-19, antecedent use of ACEI was independently associated with reduced risk of inpatient death. Our findings suggest a protective role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients with high cardiovascular risk affected by COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Protective Factors , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe patients according to the maximum degree of respiratory support received and report their inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Analysis of patients in the Coracle registry from February 22, 2020, to April 1, 2020. SETTING: Hospitals in the Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, and Lazio regions of Italy. PATIENTS: Nine-hundred forty-eight patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 948 patients, 122 (12.87%) received invasive ventilation, 637 (67.19%) received supplemental oxygen only, and 189 (19.94%) received no respiratory support. The median (quartile 1-quartile 3) age was 65 years (54-76.59 yr), and there was evidence of differential respiratory treatment by decade of life (p = 0.0046); patients greater than 80 years old were generally not intubated. There were 606 men (63.9%) in this study, and they were more likely to receive respiratory support than women (p < 0.0001). The rate of in-hospital death for invasive ventilation recipients was 22.95%, 12.87% for supplemental oxygen recipients, and 7.41% for those who received neither (p = 0.0004). A sensitivity analysis of the 770 patients less than 80 years old revealed a lower, but similar mortality trend (18.02%, 8.10%, 5.23%; p = 0.0008) among the 14.42%, 65.71%, and 19.87% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen only, or neither. Overall, invasive ventilation recipients who died were significantly older than those who survived (median age: 68.5 yr [60-81.36 yr] vs 62.5 yr [55.52-71 yr]; p = 0.0145). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019, 13% received mechanical ventilation, which was associated with a mortality rate of 23%.
ABSTRACT
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) global pandemic is a devastating event that is causing thousands of victims every day around the world. One of the main reasons of the great impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on society is its unexpected spread, which has not allowed an adequate preparation. The scientific community is fighting against time for the production of a vaccine, but it is difficult to place a safe and effective product on the market as fast as the virus is spreading. Similarly, for drugs that can directly interfere with viral pathways, their production times are long, despite the great efforts made. For these reasons, we analyzed the possible role of non-pharmacological substances such as supplements, probiotics, and nutraceuticals in reducing the risk of Sars-CoV-2 infection or mitigating the symptoms of COVID-19. These substances could have numerous advantages in the current circumstances, are generally easily available, and have negligible side effects if administered at the already used and tested dosages. Large scientific evidence supports the benefits that some bacterial and molecular products may exert on the immune response to respiratory viruses. These could also have a regulatory role in systemic inflammation or endothelial damage, which are two crucial aspects of COVID-19. However, there are no specific data available, and rigorous clinical trials should be conducted to confirm the putative benefits of diet supplementation, probiotics, and nutraceuticals in the current pandemic.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diet therapy , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Diet , Dietary Supplements , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diet therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Ascorbic Acid/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamin D/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Aims A possible interference between ACE-i or ARBs with ACE-2 receptor and SARS-CoV-2 pathway has been raised. Despite data have shown no clinical impact of therapy with ACE-I or ARBs on COVID-19, these drugs are often discontinued upon hospitalization or diagnosis. To evaluate the effects of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and prior outpatient therapy with RAAS inhibitors on the chest CT severity score performed within 24 h of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (before stopping medications or starting specific therapy for COVID-19) and on 1-year survival. Methods and results This is a multicentre, prospective, observational study. All admitted patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who performed chest CT within 24 h of arrival were consecutively enrolled from 1 March to 1 June 2020. A severity score was attributed to Chest CT by two radiologists in blind to the patient’s clinical information and a cut-off value of 19.5 was considered to define severe radiological pneumonia. A 1-year telephone follow-up was performed in order to evaluate the determinants of 1-year survival. 590 patients with a mean age of 63 ± 14 years were included. Seventy-three (12.4%) patients were treated with ACE-I, 85 (14.4%) with ARBs and 62 (10.5%) with CCB. Cox regression analysis showed that male gender (OR: 1.4;95% CI: from 1.02 to 2.07;P = 0.035), diabetes (OR: 1.6;95% CI: from 1.03 to 2.7;P = 0.037), age (OR: 1.02;95% CI: from 1.008 to 1.033;P = 0.001), and obesity (OR: 3.04;95% CI: from 1.3 to 6.7;P < 0.001) were independently associated with a severe CT score. Of note, while prior outpatient therapy with ACE-I and ARBs was not independently associated with severe CT score, therapy with CCB was independently associated with a severe CT score (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: from 1.05 to 3.4, P = 0.033). Severe chest CT severity score (OR: 1.05;95% CI: from 1.02 to 1.08;P < 0.001), P/F ratio (OR: 0.998;95% CI: from 0.994 to 0.998;P < 0.001), and older age (OR: 1.06;95% CI: from 1.03 to 1.1;P < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality at 1-year follow-up. Neither ACE-I, ARBs, and CCB were associated with mortality at 1 year follow-up. Conclusions ACE-I and ARBs do not influence the chest CT presentation of COVID-19 patients at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, ACE-I and ARBs do not influence 1-year survival of COVID-19 survivors.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 can involve several organs and systems, often with indirect and poorly clarified mechanisms. Different presentations of myocardial injury have been reported, with variable degrees of severity, often impacting on the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The pathogenic mechanisms underlying cardiac damage in SARS-CoV-2 infection are under active investigation. We report the clinical and autopsy findings of a fatal case of Takotsubo Syndrome occurring in an 83-year-old patient with COVID-19 pneumonia. The patient was admitted to Emergency Department with dyspnea, fever and diarrhea. A naso-pharyngeal swab test for SARS-CoV-2 was positive. In the following week his conditions worsened, requiring intubation and deep sedation. While in the ICU, the patient suddenly showed ST segment elevation. Left ventricular angiography showed decreased with hypercontractile ventricular bases and mid-apical ballooning, consistent with diagnosis of Takotsubo syndrome. Shortly after the patient was pulseless. After extensive resuscitation maneuvers, the patient was declared dead. Autopsy revealed a subepicardial hematoma, in absence of myocardial rupture. On histology, the myocardium showed diffuse edema, multiple foci of contraction band necrosis in both ventricles and occasional coagulative necrosis of single cardiac myocytes. Abundant macrophages CD68+ were detected in the myocardial interstitium. The finding of diffuse contraction band necrosis supports the pathogenic role of increased catecholamine levels; the presence of a significant interstitial inflammatory infiltrate, made up by macrophages, remains of uncertain significance.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Myocardium/pathology , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/etiology , Aged, 80 and over , Autopsy , Biopsy , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Fatal Outcome , Humans , Male , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/pathology , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy/therapyABSTRACT
Ischemic heart disease still represents a large burden on individuals and health care resources worldwide. By conventions, it is equated with atherosclerotic plaque due to flow-limiting obstruction in large–medium sized coronary arteries. However, clinical, angiographic and autoptic findings suggest a multifaceted pathophysiology for ischemic heart disease and just some cases are caused by severe or complicated atherosclerotic plaques. Currently there is no well-defined assessment of ischemic heart disease pathophysiology that satisfies all the observations and sometimes the underlying mechanism to everyday ischemic heart disease ward cases is misleading. In order to better examine this complicated disease and to provide future perspectives, it is important to know and analyze the pathophysiological mechanisms that underline it, because ischemic heart disease is not always determined by atherosclerotic plaque complication. Therefore, in order to have a more complete comprehension of ischemic heart disease we propose an overview of the available pathophysiological paradigms, from plaque activation to microvascular dysfunction.
ABSTRACT
In recent months SARS-CoV-2 has spread rapidly throughout the world. The case fatality rate is higher in cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Other comorbidities do not seem to confer the same risk, therefore the understanding of the relationship between infection and cardiovascular system could be a crucial point for the fight against the virus. A great interest is directed towards the angiotensin 2 converting enzyme (ACE 2) which is the SARS-CoV-2 receptor and creates important connections between the virus replication pathway, the cardiovascular system and blood pressure. All cardiovascular conditions share an imbalance of the renin angiotensin system in which ACE 2 plays a central role. In the early pandemic period, much confusion has appeared about the management of therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers especially in infected patients and in those at risk of critical illness in case of infection. In this article we will try to reorder the major opinions currently emerging on this topic.
Subject(s)
Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Animals , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Renin-Angiotensin SystemABSTRACT
AIMS: The recent coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak forced the adoption of restraint measures, which modified the hospital admission patterns for several diseases. The aim of the study is to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) during the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, compared with a corresponding period during the previous year and an earlier period during the same year. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis on HF admissions number at eight hospitals in Italy throughout the study period (21 February to 31 March 2020), compared with an inter-year period (21 February to 31 March 2019) and an intra-year period (1 January to 20 February 2020). The primary outcome was the overall rate of hospital admissions for HF. A total of 505 HF patients were included in this survey: 112 during the case period, 201 during intra-year period, and 192 during inter-year period. The mean admission rate during the case period was 2.80 admissions per day, significantly lower compared with intra-year period (3.94 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0037), or with inter-year (4.92 admissions per day; incidence rate ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001). Patients admitted during study period were less frequently admitted in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II compared with inter-year period (P = 0.019). At covariance analysis NYHA class was significantly lower in patients admitted during inter-year control period, compared with patients admitted during case period (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Admissions for HF were significantly reduced during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.