No abstract

Introduction and objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread quickly around the world. Although mainly a respiratory illness, there is growing interest in non-respiratory manifestations, particularly cardiovascular ones. At our center, mobilization of cardiologists with intensive care training was needed. Our aim is to describe patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to a Portuguese intensive care unit (ICU), the cardiovascular impact of the disease and the experience of cardiologists working in a COVID-19 ICU. Methods Data from adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU of Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho between 16 March 2020 and 21 April 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Results Thirty-five patients were admitted. Mean age was 62.6±6.0 years and 23 (65.7%) were male. Dyslipidemia was the most common cardiovascular risk factor (65.7%, n=23), followed by hypertension (57.1%, n=20). Mean ICU stay time was 15.9±10.0 days. Patients had high rates of mechanical ventilation (88.6%, n=31) and vasopressor support (88.6%, n=31). Low rates of new onset left systolic dysfunction were detected (8.5%, n=2). One patient required venoarterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Mortality was 25% (n=9). Acute myocardial injury and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) elevation was detected in 62.9% (n=22). Patients that died had higher NT-proBNP compared to those discharged alive (p<0.05). Care by cardiologists frequently changed decision making. Conclusions The cardiovascular impact of COVID-19 seems relevant but is still widely unknown. Studies are needed to clarify the role of cardiac markers in COVID-19 prognosis. Multidisciplinary care most likely results in improved patient care.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) within the blanking period after catheter ablation (CA) is traditionally classified as a transient and benign event. However, recent findings suggest that early recurrence (ER) is associated with late recurrence (LR), challenging the predefined “blanking period”. We aimed to determine the clinical and procedural predictors of ER and LR after CA and establish the risk of LR in patients who experience ER. Methods and Results Retrospective single‐centre study including all patients who underwent a first procedure of AF CA between 2017 and 2019. ER was defined as any recurrence of AF, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia >30 s within 90 days after CA and LR as any recurrence after 90 days of CA. A total of 399 patients were included, 37% women, median age of 58 years [49‐66] and 77% had paroxysmal AF. Median follow‐up was 33 months (from 13 to 61). ER after CA was present in 14% of the patients, and LR was reported in 32%. Among patients who experienced ER, 84% also had LR (p < .001). Patients with ER had a higher prevalence of moderate/severe valvular heart disease, persistent AF, previous electrical cardioversion, a larger left atrium, higher coronary artery calcium score, and higher rates of intraprocedural electrical cardioversion and cardiac fibrosis on eletroanatomical mapping compared with patients without ER. After covariate adjustment, ER and female sex were defined as independent predictors of LR (hazard ratio [HR] 4.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.99–7.35; p < .001 and HR 2.73; 95% CI, 1.47–5.10; p = .002, respectively). Conclusion The risk of LR after an index procedure of CA was significantly higher in patients with ER (five‐fold increased risk). These results support the imperative need to clarify the clinical role of the blanking period.