With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF) ; 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021–2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.

Guar gum in two forms of preparation decreased post-prandial glycemic profiles in patients when compared to controls. No differences were observed between the two guar gum preparations and no significant changes were exhibited in the FFA, lactate or pyruvate areas. From IRI and C-peptide curves the preparations containing guar gum produced slower and later responses when compared to controls. 30% of patients reported diarrhea after consumption of one guar gum preparation and 60% of patients found that one preparation was not palatable whereas the other preparation was considered to be pleasant.

Background: Cardiology divisions reshaped their activities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to analyze the organization of echocardiographic laboratories and echocardiography practice during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and the expectations for the post-COVID era. Methods: We analyzed two different time periods: the month of November during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the identical month during 2019 (November 2019). Results: During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital activity was partially reduced in 42 (60%) and wholly interrupted in 3 (4%) echocardiographic laboratories, whereas outpatient echocardiographic activity was partially reduced in 41 (59%) and completely interrupted in 7 (10%) laboratories. We observed an important change in the organization of activities in the echocardiography laboratory which reduced the operator-risk and improved self-protection of operators by using appropriate personal protection equipment. Operators wore FFP2 in 58 centers (83%) during trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE), in 65 centers (93%) during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and 63 centers (90%) during stress echocardiography. The second wave caused a significant reduction in number of echocardiographic exams, compared to November 2019 (from 513 ± 539 to 341 ± 299 exams per center, −34%, p < 0.001). On average, there was a significant increase in the outpatient waiting list for elective echocardiographic exams (from 32.0 ± 28.1 to 45.5 ± 44.9 days, +41%, p < 0.001), with a reduction of in-hospital waiting list (2.9 ± 2.4 to 2.4 ± 2.0 days, −17%, p < 0.001). We observed a large diffusion of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound (88%), with a significant increase of lung ultrasound usage in 30 centers (43%) during 2019, extended to all centers in 2020. Carbon dioxide production by examination is an indicator of the environmental impact of technology (100-fold less with echocardiography compared to other cardiac imaging techniques). It was ignored in 2019 by 100% of centers, and currently it is considered potentially crucial for decision-making in cardiac imaging by 65 centers (93%). Conclusions: In one year, major changes occurred in echocardiography practice and culture. The examination structure changed with extensive usage of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound and with lung ultrasound embedded by default in the TTE examination, as well as the COVID-19 testing.

Background Recently, the COMPASS trial demonstrated that dual therapy reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with aspirin alone in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Methods and Results We sought to assess the proportion of patients eligible for the COMPASS trial and to compare the epidemiology and outcome of these patients with those without COMPASS inclusion or with any exclusion criteria in a contemporary, nationwide cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Among the 4068 patients with detailed information allowing evaluation of eligibility, 1416 (34.8%) did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (COMPASS-Not-Included), 841 (20.7%) had exclusion criteria (COMPASS-Excluded) and the remaining 1811 (44.5%) were classified as COMPASS-Like. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, was 0.9% in the COMPASS-Not-Included and 2.0% in the COMPASS-Like (p = 0.01), and 5.0% in the COMPASS-Excluded group (p &lt; 0.0001 for all comparisons). Among the COMPASS-Like population, patients with multiple COMPASS enrichment criteria presented a significant increase in the risk of MACE (from 1.0% to 3.3% in those with 1 and ≥3 criteria, respectively; p = 0.012), and a modest absolute increase in major bleeding risk (from 0.2% to 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.46). Conclusions In a contemporary real-world cohort registry of stable CAD, most patients resulted as eligible for the COMPASS. These patients presented a considerable annual risk of MACE that consistently increases in the presence of multiple risk factors.

SummaryAn increase in total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations is related to the incidence of cardiovascular heart disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, versus gemfibrozil, a fibrate, in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia. 855 subjects (males and females, aged between 18 and 70 years) with total cholesterol (TC) concentrations> 240 mg/dl and triglyceride (TG) concentrations < 250 mg/dl were enrolled. After a pretreatment diet period, patients received either pravastatin 20 mg/day (659 patients) or gemfibrozill200 mg/day (196 patients). At the end of the 12-week treatment period, reductions in TC (-23%) and LDL-C (-31 %) were noted in the pravastatin group. Gemfibrozil reduced TC by 16% and LDL by 20%. High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations increased in a similar way in the two groups: pravastatin + 10%, gemfibrozil + 11 %. Triglycerides decreased by 14% with pravastatin and by 22% with gemfibrozil.Pravastatin and gemfibrozil were both well tolerated. No significant adverse events or variations in laboratory parameters occurred during this study.