No abstract

BackgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers are renoprotective but both may increase serum potassium concentrations in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The proportion of affected patients, the optimum follow-up period and whether there are differences between drugs in the development of this complication remain to be ascertained.MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, phase IV, controlled, crossover study we recruited 30 patients with stage 3 CKD under restrictive eligibility criteria and strict dietary control. With the exception of withdrawals, each patient was treated with olmesartan and enalapril separately for 3 months each, with a 1-week wash-out period between treatments. Patients were clinically assessed on 10 occasions via measurements of serum and urine samples. We used the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel statistics for comparison of categorical data between groups. Comparisons were also made using independent two-sample t-tests and Welch’s t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed when necessary. We used either a Mann–Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test if the distribution was not normal or the variance not homogeneous.ResultsEnalapril and olmesartan increased serum potassium levels similarly (0.3 mmol/L and 0.24 mmol/L respectively). The percentage of patients presenting hyperkalemia higher than 5 mmol/L did not differ between treatments: 37% for olmesartan and 40% for enalapril. The mean e-GFR ranged 46.3 to 48.59 ml/mint/1.73 m2 in those treated with olmesartan and 46.8 to 48.3 ml/mint/1.73 m2 in those with enalapril and remained unchanged at the end of the study. The decreases in microalbuminuria were also similar (23% in olmesartan and 29% in enalapril patients) in the 4 weeks time point. The percentage of patients presenting hyperkalemia, even after a two month period, did not differ between treatments. There were no appreciable changes in sodium and potassium urinary excretion.ConclusionsDisturbances in potassium balance upon treatment with either olmesartan or enalapril are frequent and without differences between groups. The follow-up of these patients should include control of potassium levels, at least after the first week and the first and second month after initiating treatment.Trial registrationThe trial EudraCT “2008-002191-98”.

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The role of emergency coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following cardiac arrest in patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. Aims: We aim to assess whether emergency CAG and PCI, when indicated, will improve survival with good neurological outcome in post-OHCA patients without STEMI who remain comatose. Methods: COUPE is a prospective, multicentre and randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 166 survivors of OHCA without STEMI will be included. Potentially non-cardiac aetiology of the cardiac arrest will be ruled out prior to randomization. Randomization will be 1:1 for emergency (within 2 h) or deferred (performed before discharge) CAG. Both groups will receive routine care in the intensive cardiac care unit, including therapeutic hypothermia. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of in-hospital survival free of severe dependence, which will be evaluated using the Cerebral Performance Category Scale. The safety endpoint will be a composite of major adverse cardiac events including death, reinfarction, bleeding and ventricular arrhythmias. Conclusions: This study will assess the efficacy of an emergency CAG versus a deferred one in OHCA patients without STEMI in terms of survival and neurological impairment.

No abstract

No abstract

Background No standard therapy is currently recommended for Corona-virus-19 disease (COVID-19). Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin rich micro-thrombi in several organs. Aim of the study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in COVID-19 hospitalized patients and its impact on survival. Methods 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicenter-international prospective registry (HOPE-COVID19). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. AP regimen, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, was obtained for each patient. Results During hospitalization 730 (9.3%) patients received AP drugs with single (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (73±12 vs 62±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (70% vs 64%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39.5% vs 17%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64, Log Rank p=0.23), need of invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43); However, after excluding patients treated only with anticoagulation, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (Log Rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.94) (Figure 1). At multivariable analysis including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, respiratory failure, pre-hospital therapy with antiplatelet drugs, in-hospital APT, and anticoagulation therapy, in-hospital APT was associated with a lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.29, 95% CI 0.22–0.38, p<0.001). Conclusions APT during hospitalization for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk without increased risk of bleeding. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these preliminary data. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1

No abstract

No abstract