Hypertension and Dyslipidaemia in Argentina: Patient Journey Stages.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) leads to one-third of all deaths in Argentina. To implement patient-centric strategies for reducing CVD burden, available data on hypertension and hypercholesterolemia patients at different stages of their journey: awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, adherence, and control were analysed. A semi-systematic review in peer-reviewed databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and unstructured sources such as Google Scholar, Argentine Ministry of Health, and World Health Organization websites was conducted till 06.07.2021 for hypertension and dyslipidemia. English articles published in 2010-2021, depicting patient journey data for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia of the nationally representative adult population of Argentina were included. Thesis abstracts, letters to the editor, editorials, and case studies were excluded. No limits were used for unstructured sources. Weighted or simple means were estimated for patient journey stages. Out of 296 and 1257 articles retrieved for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, respectively, five articles were retained for each of the conditions. The estimates for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, respectively, were 46.6% and 30.7% for prevalence, 61.6% and 37.3% for awareness, 97.5% and ≥80% for screening, 64.1% and 28.9% for diagnosis, and 49.7% and 36.6% for treatment, and 19.9% and 20% for overall control. Adherence data were not available for hypercholesterolemia, while the same for hypertension was 50.4%. Various determinants are responsible for low adherence such as patient-level barriers, physician-related barriers, and health system-related issues. The review reveals that hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are poorly controlled in Argentina. Although further studies with more accurate data are needed to confirm these results, they should alert the medical community and the public health institutions to take urgent corrective actions.

Uso actual de la aspirina como agente antitrombótico: ¿droga vigente u obsoleta? / Present Use of Aspirin as an Antithrombotic Agent: Current or Outdated Drug?

RESUMEN El ácido acetilsalicílico, o aspirina, es una de las herramientas farmacológicas más usadas en el cuidado de los pacientes cardiovasculares. Durante años se utilizó ampliamente en prevención primaria y secundaria para disminuir el riesgo cardiovascular. En los últimos tiempos su uso ha sido cuestionado, con nuevos ensayos en diferentes escenarios dentro de la patología cardíaca, como la enfermedad vascular periférica, el accidente cerebrovascular, la prevención primaria en el contexto del tratamiento médico moderno, o en el paciente con un síndrome coronario agudo y necesidad concomitante de anticoagulación. A su vez, nuevos estudios cuestionan la necesidad de mantener la aspirina durante 12 meses junto a una tienopiridina luego de un síndrome coronario agudo, y proponen esquemas abreviados. En esta revisión, evaluamos la evidencia detrás de las indicaciones actuales del uso de aspirina en diferentes escenarios clínicos, y formulamos recomendaciones en cada uno de los casos.

ABSTRACT Acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin, is one of pharmacological tools most widely used in the care of cardiovascular patients. For years, it has been widely used in primary and secondary prevention to reduce cardiovascular risk. Aspirin utilization has been questioned in recent times, with new trials in different scenarios of cardiovascular disease, such as peripheral vascular disease, stroke, primary prevention in the context of modern medical treatment, or in patients with acute coronary syndrome and concomitant need for anticoagulation. In turn, new studies question the need to maintain aspirin for 12 months together with a thienopyridine after an acute coronary syndrome, suggesting shorter regimens. In this review, we evaluate the evidence behind the current indications for aspirin use in different clinical scenarios and provide recommendations on a case-by-case basis.

Anticoagulación oral en reintervenciones endovasculares de la aorta / Oral Anticoagulation in Endovascular Aortic Reinterventions

RESUMEN Introducción: La endofuga es la principal causa de reintervención después del tratamiento endovascular de aorta. Algunos pacientes necesitan anticoagulación oral prolongada, lo cual puede aumentar la incidencia de endofugas posoperatorias. Objetivos: Nuestro objetivo es determinar si la anticoagulación oral posoperatoria tiene impacto en la incidencia de endofugas. Material y métodos: Este análisis retrospectivo incluyó todos los pacientes con aneurisma de aorta abdominal tratados por vía endovascular entre 2009 y 2014 en nuestro centro. Se determinaron dos grupos de pacientes de acuerdo con la necesidad de anticoagulación oral y se comparó entre ambos grupos la mortalidad relacionada con la aorta; la supervivencia libre de reintervenciones, de cualquier endofuga y de endofugas no tipo II; supervivencia libre de un punto final compuesto por mortalidad relacionada con la aorta, reintervenciones y endofugas, y la reducción del diámetro del saco aneurismático. Resultados: De 341 pacientes tratados, 33 (9,67%) estaban anticoagulados. No hubo diferencias entre ambos grupos en términos de mortalidad relacionada con la aorta (2,59% vs. 3,03%, p = ns), supervivencia libre de reintervenciones (84,04% vs. 86,2%; p = ns), supervivencia libre de cualquier endofuga (82% vs. 89%; p = 0,81) o supervivencia libre de endofugas no tipo II (88% vs. 88%; p = 0,52). Al analizar la supervivencia libre del punto final compuesto tampoco se encontraron diferencias significativas (80% vs. 85%; p = ns). La reducción promedio del diámetro del saco aneurismático fue de 5,19 mm y 3,51 mm (p = 0,2). Conclusiones: No se registró diferencia en ninguno de los resultados analizados. La anticoagulación oral posoperatoria no tuvo impacto en los resultados del tratamiento endovascular de aorta.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Endoleak is the main cause for reintervention after endovascular aortic repair. Some patientis need prolonged oral anticoagulation, which may increase the incidence of postoperative endoleaks. Objectives: Our objective was to determine whether postoperative oral anticoagulation has an impact on the incidence of endoleaks. Methods: This retrospective analysis included all patientis with endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm at our center between 2009 and 2014. Two groups of patientis were determined according to the need for oral anticoagulation. Aortic-related mortality, survival free from reinterventions, any endoleak and non-type II endoleaks, survival free of the composite endpoint of mortality associated with the aorta, reinterventions and endoleaks, and reduction of aneurysmal sac diameter was compared between both groups.Resultis: Among 341 treated patientis, 33 (9.67%) were anticoagulated. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of aorta-related mortality (2.59% vs. 3.03%, p=ns), reintervention-free survival (84.04% vs. 86.2%; p=ns), any endoleak- free survival (82% vs. 89%, p=0.81) or non-type II endoleak-free survival (88% vs. 88%, p=0.52). Similarly, no significant differences were found when analyzing the composite endpoint-free survival (80% vs. 85%, p=ns). The average reduction of aneurysmal sac diameter was 5.19 mm and 3.51 mm (p=0.2). Conclusions: No difference was registered in any of the resultis analyzed. Postoperative oral anticoagulation had no impact on the resultis of endovascular aortic treatment.

Aneurisma de aorta ascendente: ¿cuál es el riesgo de reemplazar la raíz? / Ascending Aorta Aneurysm: What is the Risk of Replacing the Aortic Root?

RESUMEN Introducción: El riesgo-beneficio del reemplazo de los senos de Valsalva con el consiguiente reimplante coronario frente a la alternativa de mantenerlos, cuando hay dilataciones moderadas de la raíz, es un tópico que se debe definir. Objetivo: Analizar la morbimortalidad posoperatoria y a largo plazo en pacientes sometidos a reemplazo de la raíz aórtica comparados con aquellos en los que se han respetado los senos de Valsalva. Material y métodos: Entre 2002 y 2016, a 426 pacientes se les realizó reemplazo de aorta ascendente. Tras excluir de esa población las cirugías de urgencia, las aortopatías genéticas (excepto bicúspide), las reoperaciones y las cirugías del arco, se conformó una población de 259 pacientes. En 99 de ellos (38,2%) se reemplazó la aorta ascendente conservando la raíz; estos pacientes fueron comparados con los 160 (61,8%) pacientes restantes, en quienes se reemplazaron los senos de Valsalva. Resultados: El grupo en el que se preservó la raíz fue más añoso, con más mujeres, con un Euroscore mayor, con mayor incidencia de válvula bicúspide y enfermedad coronaria. El tiempo de circulación extracorpórea fue mayor en el grupo en el que se reemplazó la raíz. La mortalidad hospitalaria no fue diferente (1% para la conservación de raíz vs. 3,1% para el reemplazo de los senos de Valsalva (p = 0,272). En el análisis multivariado, el tiempo de circulación extracorpórea fue predictor de mortalidad posoperatoria. La sobrevida a 8 años no mostró diferencias significativas entre grupos. En el seguimiento, ningún paciente requirió reoperación debido a complicaciones de la aorta. En el análisis multivariado, la edad y la presencia de enfermedad valvular mitral fueron predictores de mortalidad alejada. Conclusión: El reemplazo de la aorta ascendente, ya sea reemplazando la raíz o respetando los senos de Valsalva, es una cirugía segura, con baja morbimortalidad hospitalaria. A largo plazo, la preservación de los senos de Valsalva no se asocia con más eventos ni con mayor mortalidad.

ABSTRACT Background: In mildly dilated aortic root, the cost-benefit of replacing of the sinuses of Valsalva with reimplantation of the coronary arteries or preserving them is still a matter of debate. Objective: The goal of this study was to analyze the postoperative and long-term morbidity and mortality of patients undergo-ing aortic root replacement versus aortic root surgery with sinuses of Valsalva preservation. Methods: Between 2002 and 2016, 426 patients underwent replacement of the ascending aorta. After excluding patients under-going urgent procedures, genetic aortic diseases (except for bicuspid aortic valve), reoperations and surgery of the aortic arch, the cohort was made up of 259 patients. In 99 of them (38.2%) the ascending aorta was replaced, preserving the aortic root; these patients were compared with the remaining 160 (61.8%) patients who underwent replacement of the sinuses of Valsalva. Results: Patients undergoing preservation of the aortic root were older, had higher percentage of female sex, higher EuroSCORE and with greater incidence of bicuspid aortic valve and coronary artery disease. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the group undergoing aortic root replacement. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality between both groups (1% in the group with preservation of the aortic root vs. 3.1% for replacement of the sinuses of Valsalva, p=0.272). Multivariate analysis showed that cardiopulmonary bypass was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Survival at 8 years was similar in both groups. There were no new operations due to complications in the aorta during follow-up. At multivariate analysis, age and mitral valve disease were identified as predictors of long-term mortality. Conclusion: Replacement of the ascending aorta, either replacing the aortic root or preserving the sinuses of Valsalva, is a safe procedure, with low in-hospital mortality. Preservation of the sinuses of Valsalva is not associated with greater rate of events or mortality at the long-term.

Actual impact of screening for myocardial ischemia with single-photon emission tomography among patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions.

The present study provides actual data with regard to the prevalence of myocardial ischemia among patients under contemporary cardiovascular prevention strategies undergoing peripheral vascular interventions. We included a total of 200 consecutive patients who underwent gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion study between January 2012 and January 2014 as preoperative evaluation for peripheral vascular interventions at our institution. The baseline medical treatment comprised aspirin (81%), statins (79%), and ß-blockers (54%). Thirty-two (16%) patients underwent carotid revascularization; 69 (34.5%) patients underwent lower limb revascularization, and 99 patients underwent aortic interventions. Twenty-six (13%) patients showed evidence of myocardial ischemia, with an extensive ischemic burden identified in seven (3.5%) patients. Within the group of patients with peripheral vasculopathy, those with lower limb arteriopathy had a higher prevalence of ischemia. According to the results of the myocardial perfusion study, the cardiology in charge indicated invasive coronary angiography in 11/26 (42%) patients with evidence of myocardial ischemia. Seven of the 11 (64%) patients who had coronary angiography were revascularized. After a mean follow-up of 24 months, no cardiovascular adverse events were detected.

A qualitative study of the impact on learning of the mini clinical evaluation exercise in postgraduate training.

The study was designed to illustrate how residents perceive the Mini Clinical Examination Exercise as an assessment tool and its influence on their approach to learning and studying. A phenomenographic approach was applied. All 16 residents from a cardiology training program in Buenos Aires were included. Results show that in all cases residents demonstrate an intrinsic interest in the subject matter. They show self-regulating strategies when required to select, relate and make critical appraisals of their own. They consistently demonstrate an aim to build a relationship between individual experience and their chosen topic. The residents feel comfortable because it melts with their routine. Residents find the Mini Clinical Examination Exercise to be a useful assessment tool with a favorable influence towards a constructive approach to study and learning.