The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) on the occurrence of new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in treated hypertensive patients. We studied 2135 sequential treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years. During the follow‐up (mean 9.7 years, range 0.4–20 years), 116 events (new‐onset AF) occurred. In univariate analysis, clinic, daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP were all significantly associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.22 (1.11–1.35), 1.36 (1.21–1.53), 1.42 (1.29–1.57), and 1.42 (1.26–1.60), respectively. After adjustment for various covariates in multivariate analysis, clinic systolic BP was no longer associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, whereas daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP remained significantly associated with outcome, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.09 (0.97–1.23), 1.23 (1.10–1.39), 1.16 (1.03–1.31), and 1.22 (1.06–1.40), respectively. Daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP are superior to clinic systolic BP in predicting new‐onset AF in treated hypertensive patients. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether a better control of ambulatory BP might be helpful in reducing the occurrence of new‐onset AF.

No abstract

No abstract

The authors assessed the prognostic value of daytime and nighttime blood pressure (BP) in adult (≤65 years) or old (> 65 years) women or men with treated hypertension. Cardiovascular outcomes were evaluated in 2264 patients. During the follow‐up (mean 10 years), 523 cardiovascular events occurred. After adjustment for covariates, both daytime and nighttime systolic BP were always associated with outcomes, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval per 10 mm Hg increment) 1.22 (1.04‐1.43) and 1.20 (1.04‐1.37), respectively, in adult women, 1.30 (1.18‐1.43) and 1.21 (1.10‐1.33), respectively, in adult men, 1.21 (1.10‐1.33) and 1.18 (1.07‐1.31), respectively, in old women, and 1.16 (1.01‐1.33) and 1.28 (1.14‐1.44), respectively, in old men. When daytime and nighttime systolic BP were further and mutually adjusted, daytime and nighttime BP had comparable prognostic value in adult and old women, daytime BP remained associated with outcomes in adult men (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.13‐1.74 per 10 mm Hg increment), and nighttime BP remained associated with outcomes in old men (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.11‐1.64 per 10 mm Hg increment). Daytime and nighttime systolic BP have similar prognostic impact in adult and old women with treated hypertension, whereas daytime BP is a stronger predictor of risk in adult men and nighttime BP is a stronger predictor of risk in old men.

BackgroundMyocarditis and pericarditis have been proposed to account for a proportion of cardiac injury during SARS-CoV-2 infection. The impact of COVID-19 the pandemic on the incidence of this acute inflammatory cardiac disease was not systematically evaluated.AimTo examine the incidence and prevalence of inflammatory heart disorders prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe compared the incidence and prevalence of acute inflammatory heart diseases (myocarditis, pericarditis) in the provinces of Pisa, Lucca and Livorno in two time intervals: prior to (PRECOVID, from 1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID, from 1 June 2020 to May 2021).ResultsOverall 259 cases of inflammatory heart disease (myocarditis and/or pericarditis) occurred in the areas of interest. The annual incidence was of 11.3 cases per 100 000 inhabitants. Particularly, 138 cases occurred in the pre-COVID, and 121 in the COVID period. The annual incidence of inflammatory heart disease was not significantly different (12.1/100 000 in PRECOVID vs 10.3/100 000 in COVID, P = 0.22). The annual incidence of myocarditis was significantly higher in PRECOVID than in COVID, respectively 8.1/100 000/year vs. 5.9/100 000/year (P = 0.047) consisting of a net reduction of 27% of cases. Particularly the incidence of myocarditis was significantly lower in COVID than in PRECOVID in the class of age 18–24 years. Despite this, myocarditis of the COVID period had more wall motion abnormalities and greater LGE extent. The annual incidence of pericarditis was, instead, not significantly different (4.03/100 000 vs, 4.47/100 000, P = 0.61).ConclusionDespite a possible etiologic role of SARS-CoV-2 and an expectable increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis, data of this preliminary study, with a geographically limited sample size, suggest a decrease in acute myocarditis and a stable incidence of pericarditis and of myopericarditis/perimyocarditis.