IMPORTANCE It has been hypothesized that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may make patients more susceptible to coronavirus disease 2019 and to worse outcomes through upregulation of the functional receptor of the virus, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2.OBJECTIVE To examine whether use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with COVID-19 diagnosis and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSTo examine outcomes among patients with COVID-19, a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish national administrative registries was conducted. Patients with COVID-19 from February 22 to May 4, 2020, were identified using ICD-10 codes and followed up from day of diagnosis to outcome or end of study period (May 4, 2020). To examine susceptibility to COVID-19, a Cox regression model with a nested case-control framework was used to examine the association between use of ACEI/ARBs vs other antihypertensive drugs and the incidence rate of a COVID-19 diagnosis in a cohort of patients with hypertension from February 1 to May 4, 2020.EXPOSURES ACEI/ARB use was defined as prescription fillings 6 months prior to the index date. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESIn the retrospective cohort study, the primary outcome was death, and a secondary outcome was a composite outcome of death or severe COVID-19. In the nested case-control susceptibility analysis, the outcome was COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTSIn the retrospective cohort study, 4480 patients with COVID-19 were included (median age, 54.7 years [interquartile range, 40.9-72.0]; 47.9% men). There were 895 users (20.0%) of ACEI/ARBs and 3585 nonusers (80.0%). In the ACEI/ARB group, 18.1% died within 30 days vs 7.3% in the nonuser group, but this association was not significant after adjustment for age, sex, and medical history (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67-1.03]). Death or severe COVID-19 occurred in 31.9% of ACEI/ARB users vs 14.2% of nonusers by 30 days (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89-1.23]). In the nested case-control analysis of COVID-19 susceptibility, 571 patients with COVID-19 and prior hypertension (median age, 73.9 years; 54.3% men) were compared with 5710 age-and sex-matched controls with prior hypertension but not COVID-19. Among those with COVID-19, 86.5% used ACEI/ARBs vs 85.4% of controls; ACEI/ARB use compared with other antihypertensive drugs was not significantly associated with higher incidence of COVID-19 (adjusted HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.80-1.36]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEPrior use of ACEI/ARBs was not significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis among patients with hypertension or with mortality or severe disease among patients diagnosed as having COVID-19. These findings do not support discontinuation of ACEI/ARB medications that are clinically indicated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Patients with infective endocarditis on the left side of the heart are typically treated with intravenous antibiotic agents for up to 6 weeks. Whether a shift from intravenous to oral antibiotics once the patient is in stable condition would result in efficacy and safety similar to those with continued intravenous treatment is unknown. Methods In a randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial, we assigned 400 adults in stable condition who had endocarditis on the left side of the heart caused by streptococcus, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, or coagulase-negative staphylococci and who were being treated with intravenous antibiotics to continue intravenous treatment (199 patients) or to switch to oral antibiotic treatment (201 patients). In all patients, antibiotic treatment was administered intravenously for at least 10 days. If feasible, patients in the orally treated group were discharged to outpatient treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, unplanned cardiac surgery, embolic events, or relapse of bacteremia with the primary pathogen, from the time of randomization until 6 months after antibiotic treatment was completed. Results After randomization, antibiotic treatment was completed after a median of 19 days (interquartile range, 14 to 25) in the intravenously treated group and 17 days (interquartile range, 14 to 25) in the orally treated group (P=0.48). The primary composite outcome occurred in 24 patients (12.1%) in the intravenously treated group and in 18 (9.0%) in the orally treated group (between-group difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 9.6; P=0.40), which met noninferiority criteria. Conclusions In patients with endocarditis on the left side of the heart who were in stable condition, changing to oral antibiotic treatment was noninferior to continued intravenous antibiotic treatment. (Funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and others; POET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01375257 .).

Monotherapy with the most used ISs, including glimepiride, glibenclamide, glipizide, and tolbutamide, seems to be associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular risk compared with metformin. Gliclazide and repaglinide appear to be associated with a lower risk than other ISs.

IMPORTANCE Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with low survival, but early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation can improve outcomes if more widely adopted.OBJECTIVE To examine temporal changes in bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts before arrival of the emergency medical services (EMS) following statewide initiatives to improve bystander and first-responder efforts in North Carolina from 2010-2013 and to examine the association between bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts and survival and neurological outcome. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTSWe studied 4961 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for whom resuscitation was attempted and who were identified through the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013). First responders were dispatched police officers, firefighters, rescue squad, or life-saving crew trained to perform basic life support until arrival of the EMS. EXPOSURES Statewide initiatives to improve bystander and first-responder interventions included training members of the general population in CPR and in use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), training first responders in team-based CPR including AED use and high-performance CPR, and training dispatch centers in recognition of cardiac arrest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe proportion of bystander and first-responder resuscitation efforts, including the combination of efforts between bystanders and first responders, from 2010 through 2013 and the association between these resuscitation efforts and survival and neurological outcome. RESULTSThe combination of bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation increased from 14.1% (51 of 362; 95% CI, 10.9%-18.1%) in 2010 to 23.1% (104 of 451; 95% CI, 19.4%-27.2%) in 2013 (P < .01). Survival with favorable neurological outcome increased from 7.1% (82 of 1149; 95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%) in 2010 to 9.7% (129 of 1334; 95% CI, 8.2%-11.4%) in 2013 (P = .02) and was associated with bystander-initiated CPR. Adjusting for age and sex, bystander and first-responder interventions were associated with higher survival to hospital discharge. Survival following EMS-initiated CPR and defibrillation was 15.2% (30 of 198; 95% CI, 10.8%-20.9%) compared with 33.6% (38 of 113; 95% CI, 25.5%-42.9%) following bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio [OR], 3.12; 95% CI, 1.78-5.46); 24.2% (83 of 343; 95% CI, 20.0%-29.0%) following bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.71); and 25.2% (109 of 432; 95% CI, 21.4%-29.6%) following first-responder CPR and defibrillation (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.13-2.77). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEFollowing a statewide educational intervention on rescusitation training, the proportion of patients receiving bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation by first responders increased and was associated with greater likelihood of survival. Bystander-initiated CPR was associated with greater likelihood of survival with favorable neurological outcome.

NSAIDs are frequently used in patients with HF and are associated with increased risk of death and cardiovascular morbidity. Inasmuch as even commonly used NSAIDs exerted increased risk, the balance between risk and benefit requires careful consideration when any NSAID is given to patients with HF.

No abstract

Since 2010, more incident AF patients in Denmark were initiated on OAC therapy with predominant NOAC prescription. The increase was pronounced among females, among patients at high risk of stroke, and among older patients.

Among oral anticoagulation-naïve AF patients initiated on oral anticoagulation in Denmark, warfarin initiation has declined since the introduction of dabigatran in August 2011. Dabigatran is the most frequently used alternative option to warfarin; however, use of rivaroxaban and apixaban is increasing. Patients initiated with rivaroxaban or apixaban in general have a higher predicted stroke and bleeding risks compared with warfarin or dabigatran initiators.