No abstract

Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability ). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.

Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains one of the leading causes of mortality for women, increasing with age. There is an unmet need regarding this condition in a fast‐growing and predominantly female population, such as nonagenarians. Hypothesis Our aim is to compare sex‐based differences in ACS management and long‐term clinical outcomes between women and men in a cohort of nonagenarians. Methods We included consecutive nonagenarian patients with ACS admitted at four academic centers between 2005 and 2018. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each center. Results A total of 680 nonagenarians were included (59% females). Of them, 373 (55%) patients presented with non‐ST‐segment elevation ACS and 307 (45%) with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Men presented a higher disease burden compared to women. Conversely, women were frailer with higher disability and severe cognitive impairment. In the STEMI group, women were less likely than men to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (60% vs. 45%; p = .01). Overall mortality rates were similar in both groups but PCI survival benefit at 1‐year was greater in women compared to their male counterparts (82% vs. 68%; p = .008), persisting after sensitivity analyses using propensity‐score matching (80% vs. 64%; p = .03). Conclusion Sex‐gender disparities have been observed in nonagenarians. Despite receiving less often invasive approaches, women showed better clinical outcomes. Our finding may help increase awareness and reduce the current gender gap in ACS management at any age.

Background: Administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prolongs QTc corrected interval (QTc). The effect and safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in combination with these therapies have seldom been studied. Objectives : Our aim was to evaluate changes in QTc in patients receiving double (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin) and triple therapy (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Lopinavir/Ritonavir) to treat COVID-19. Secondary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital all-cause mortality. Methods: Patients under treatment with double (DT) and triple therapy (TT) for COVID-19 were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Serial in-hospital electrocardiograms were performed to measure QTc at baseline and during therapy. Results: 168 patients (±66.2 years old) were included: 32.1% received DT and 67.9% received TT. The mean baseline QTc was 410.33 ms. Patients under DT and TT prolonged QTc interval respect baseline values ( p < 0.001), without significant differences between both therapy groups ( p = 0.748). Overall, 33 patients (19.6%) had a peak QTc and/or an increase QTc 60 ms from baseline, with a higher prevalence among those with hypokalemia ( p = 0.003). All-cause mortality was similar between both strategy groups ( p = 0.093) and high risk QTc prolongation was no related to clinical events in this series. Conclusions: DT and TT prolong the QTc in patients with COVID-19. Addition of Lopinavir/Ritonavir on top of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin did not increase QTc compared to DT.

No abstract

Abstract Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies.Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed.Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between 3 different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented.Results: 182 COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the 3 monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p=0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p=0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p<0.001).Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.

No abstract

No abstract