Background The relationship between mitral valve prolapse ( MVP ) and sudden cardiac death ( SCD ) remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluate the relationship between isolated MVP and SCD to better define a potential high‐risk subtype. In addition, we determine whether premortem parameters could predict SCD in patients with MVP and the incidence of SCD in MVP . Methods and Results Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase for all English literature articles published between 1960 and 2018 regarding MVP and SCD or cardiac arrest. We also identified articles investigating predictors of ventricular arrhythmias or SCD and cohort studies reporting SCD outcomes in MVP . From 2180 citations, there were 79 articles describing 161 cases of MVP with SCD or cardiac arrest. The median age was 30 years and 69% of cases were female. Cardiac arrest occurred during situations of stress in 47% and was caused by ventricular fibrillation in 81%. Premature ventricular complexes on Holter monitoring (92%) were common. Most cases had bileaflet involvement (70%) with redundancy (99%) and nonsevere mitral regurgitation (83%). From 22 articles describing predictors for ventricular arrhythmias or SCD in MVP , leaflet redundancy was the only independent predictor of SCD . The incidence of SCD with MVP was estimated at 217 events per 100 000 person‐years. Conclusions Isolated MVP and SCD predominantly affects young females with redundant bileaflet prolapse, with cardiac arrest usually occurring as a result of ventricular arrhythmias. To better understand the complex relationship between MVP and SCD , standardized reporting of clinical, electrophysiological, and cardiac imaging parameters with longitudinal follow‐up is required.

No abstract

Background There are well-documented treatment gaps in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease with a lack of clearly defined strategies to assist early physical activity after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Smartphone technology may provide an innovative platform to close these gaps. Objectives The primary goal of this study was to assess whether a smartphone-based, early cardiac rehabilitation program improved exercise capacity in patients with ACS. Methods A total of 206 patients with ACS across six tertiary Australian hospitals were included in this randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to usual care (UC; including referral to traditional cardiac rehabilitation), with or without an adjunctive smartphone-based cardiac rehabilitation program (S-CRP) upon hospital discharge. The primary endpoint was change in exercise capacity, measured by the change in 6-minute walk test distance at 8 weeks when compared to baseline, between groups. Secondary endpoints included uptake and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation, changes in cardiac risk factors, psychological well-being and quality of life status. Results Of the 168 patients with complete follow-up (age 56 ± 10 years; 16% females), 83 were in the S-CRP. At 8-week follow-up, the S-CRP group had a clinically significant improvement in 6-minute walk test distance (Δ117 ± 76 vs. Δ91 ± 110 m; P = 0.02). Patients in the S-CRP were more likely to participate (87% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and adhere (72% vs. 22%, P < 0.001) to a cardiac rehabilitation program. Compared to UC, patients receiving S-CRP had similar smoking cessation rates, LDL-cholesterol levels, blood pressure reduction, depression, anxiety and quality of life measures (all P = NS). Conclusion In patients with ACS, a S-CRP, as an adjunct to UC improved exercise capacity at 8 weeks in addition to participation and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12616000426482).

No abstract

Liver transplant recipients may be at increased risk for adverse outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection because of chronic immunosuppression and associated comorbidities. There is a paucity of literature describing clinical presentation, treatments, and outcomes in liver transplant recipients with COVID-19. A systematic search was performed for articles published up to June 15, 2020, revealing 223 liver transplant recipients with COVID-19 in 15 studies. Patients most commonly presented with fever (66.7%), dyspnea (34.0%), and diarrhea (28.4%). Of these, 77.7% required hospitalization, 24% had mild disease, 40% had moderate disease, and 36% had severe disease. Immunosuppression was modified in 32.8% of recipients. The case fatality rate was 19.3%. Dyspnea on presentation, diabetes mellitus, and age 60 years or older were significantly associated with increased mortality ( P ≤ .01) with a trend to higher mortality rate observed in those with hypertension and those receiving corticosteroids at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. The median time from symptoms to death was 11.5 days (2-45 days). In conclusion, liver transplant recipients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are overrepresented with regard to severe disease and hospitalizations. Older liver transplant patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension, who are on maintenance corticosteroids, with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and describing breathlessness should be aggressively monitored for signs of deterioration because of the risk for mortality.

No abstract

Aims There has been significant evolution in operative and post-transplant therapies following liver transplantation (LT). We sought to study their impact on cardiovascular (CV) mortality, particularly in the longer term. Methods and results A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult LTs in Australia and New Zealand across three 11-year eras from 1985 to assess prevalence, modes, and predictors of early (≤30 days) and late (&gt;30 days) CV mortality. A total of 4265 patients were followed-up for 37 409 person-years. Overall, 1328 patients died, and CV mortality accounted for 228 (17.2%) deaths. Both early and late CV mortality fell significantly across the eras (P &lt; 0.001). However, CV aetiologies were consistently the leading cause of early mortality and accounted for ∼40% of early deaths in the contemporary era. Cardiovascular deaths occurred significantly later than non-cardiac aetiologies (8.8 vs. 5.2 years, P &lt; 0.001). On multivariable Cox regression, coronary artery disease [hazard ratio (HR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2–21.6; P = 0.04] and era of transplantation (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28–0.70; P = 0.01) were predictors of early CV mortality, while advancing age (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.10; P = 0.005) was an independent predictors of late CV mortality. Most common modes of CV death were cardiac arrest, cerebrovascular events, and myocardial infarction. Conclusion Despite reductions in CV mortality post-LT over 30 years, they still account for a substantial proportion of early and late deaths. The late occurrence of CV deaths highlights the importance of longitudinal follow-up to study the efficacy of targeted risk-reduction strategies in this unique patient population.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, enters human cells by binding of its viral protein to the aminopeptidase angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This has led to speculation whether treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors was associated with an increased likelihood of a positive test for COVID-19 and risk of mortality. Aims: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether RAS inhibitors increased the likelihood of a positive test or death/severe illness in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE was conducted for studies stratified by the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results: Seven trials of 73 122 patients were included. Overall, 16 624 (22.7%) patients had a positive COVID-19 test and 7892 (10.8%) were on a RAS inhibitor. RAS inhibitors were not associated with higher likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test result (odds ratio (OR) 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-1.05, P = 0.48) with low heterogeneity. This was comparable when stratifying by use of each medication class. The use of RAS inhibitors was also not associated with mortality or severe illness (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73-1.07, P = 0.21) with moderate heterogeneity. Conclusion: Use of ACEI or ARB was not associated with a heightened susceptibility for a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. Furthermore, they were not associated with increased illness severity or mortality due to COVID-19. Randomised controlled trials are needed to address definitively the potential benefits or harms of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19.