Aims Extensive research regarding the association of troponin and prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has been performed. However, data regarding natriuretic peptides are scarce. N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) reflects haemodynamic stress and has proven useful for risk stratification in heart failure (HF) and other conditions such as pulmonary embolism and pneumonia. We aimed to adequately characterize NT‐proBNP concentrations using a large cohort of patients with COVID‐19, and to investigate its association with prognosis. Methods and results Consecutive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection and available NT‐proBNP determinations, from March 1st to April 20th, 2020 who completed at least 1‐month follow‐up or died, were studied. Of 3080 screened patients, a total of 396 (mean age 71.8 ± 14.6 years, 61.1% male) fulfilled all the selection criteria and were finally included, with a median follow‐up of 53 (18–62) days. Of those, 192 (48.5%) presented NT‐proBNP levels above the recommended cut‐off for the identification of HF. However, only 47 fulfilled the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of HF. Patients with higher NT‐proBNP during admission experienced more frequent bleeding, arrhythmias and HF decompensations. NT‐proBNP was associated with mortality both in the whole study population and after excluding patients with HF. A multivariable Cox model confirmed that NT‐proBNP was independently associated with mortality after adjusting for all relevant confounders (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.13–1.44, per logarithmic unit). Conclusion NT‐proBNP is frequently elevated in COVID‐19. It is strongly and independently associated with mortality after adjusting for relevant confounders, including chronic HF and acute HF. Therefore, its use may improve early prognostic stratification in this condition.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims: Rapid heart rate lowering may be attractive in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Accordingly we studied the effect of intravenous ivabradine on heart rate in this setting. Methods and results:This was a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial: patients aged 40-80 years were randomized after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed within 6 h of STEMI symptom onset. Patients were in sinus rhythm and with heart rate >80 bpm and systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg. They were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to intravenous ivabradine (n=82) (5 mg bolus over 30 s, followed by 5 mg infusion over 8 h) or matching placebo (n=42). The primary outcome measure was heart rate and blood pressure. In both groups, heart rate was reduced over 8 h, with a faster and more marked decrease on ivabradine than placebo (22.2±1.3 vs 8.9±1.8 bpm, p<0.0001). After treatment discontinuation, heart rate was similar in both groups. Throughout the study, there was no difference in blood pressure between groups. There was no difference in cardiac biomarkers (creatine kinase (CK-MB), troponin T and troponin I). On echocardiography performed at baseline and post treatment (median 1.16 days), final left ventricular volumes were lower in the ivabradine group both for left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (87.1±28.2 vs 117.8±21.4 ml, p=0.01) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (42.5±19.0 versus 59.1±11.3 ml, p=0.03) without differences in volume change or left ventricular ejection fraction. Conclusion: This pilot study shows that intravenous ivabradine may be used safely to slow the heart rate in STEMI. Further studies are needed to characterize its effect on infarct size, left ventricular function and clinical outcomes in this population.