ObjectivePrevious studies that evaluated cardiovascular risk factors considered age as a potential confounder. We aimed to investigate the impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors on fatal outcomes according to age in patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed on data collected from PubMed and Embase databases up to 11 June 2020. All observational studies (case series or cohort studies) that assessed in-hospital patients were included, except those involving the paediatric population. Prevalence rates of comorbid diseases and clinical outcomes were stratified by mean patient age in each study (ranges: <50 years, 50–60 years and ≥60 years). The primary outcome measure was a composite fatal outcome of severe COVID-19 or death.ResultsWe included 51 studies with a total of 48 317 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. Overall, the relative risk of developing severe COVID-19 or death was significantly higher in patients with risk factors for CVD (hypertension: OR 2.50, 95% CI 2.15 to 2.90; diabetes: 2.25, 95% CI 1.89 to 2.69) and CVD (3.11, 95% 2.55 to 3.79). Younger patients had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes and CVD compared with older patients; however, the relative risk of fatal outcomes was higher among the former.ConclusionsThe results of the meta-analysis suggest that CVD and its risk factors (hypertension and diabetes) were closely related to fatal outcomes in COVID-19 for patients across all ages. Although young patients had lower prevalence rates of cardiovascular comorbidities than elderly patients, relative risk of fatal outcome in young patients with hypertension, diabetes and CVD was higher than in elderly patients.Prospero registration numberCRD42020198152.

No abstract

Background Few studies have investigated optimal revascularization strategies in non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. We investigated 3‐year clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategy in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. Methods and Results This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease without cardiogenic shock. Data were analyzed at 3 years according to the percutaneous coronary intervention strategy: culprit‐only revascularization (COR), 1‐stage multivessel revascularization (MVR), and multistage MVR. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: a composite of all‐cause death, nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction, or any repeat revascularization). The COR group had a higher risk of MACE than those involving other strategies (COR versus 1‐stage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54–0.77; P <0.001; and COR versus multistage MVR; hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.97; P =0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACE between 1‐stage and multistage MVR (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86–1.51; P =0.355). The results were consistent after multivariate regression, propensity score matching, inverse probability weighting, and Bayesian proportional hazards modeling. In subgroup analyses stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, 1‐stage MVR lowered the risk of MACE compared with multistage MVR in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients but not in patients at high risk. Conclusions MVR reduced 3‐year MACE in patients with non–ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease compared with COR. However, 1‐stage MVR was not superior to multistage MVR for reducing MACE except in low‐to‐intermediate risk patients.

No abstract