Background COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. MethodsWe did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0•3-0•7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34•8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41•3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0•86 [95% CI 0•59-1•22], p=0•40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3•64 [95% CI 1•61-8•27], p=0•0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group.Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagul...

Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) has been gaining importance as a method of functional assessment in Brazil and worldwide. In its most frequent applications, CPET consists in applying a gradually increasing intensity exercise until exhaustion or until the appearance of limiting symptoms and/or signs. The following parameters are measured: ventilation; oxygen consumption (VO2); carbon dioxide production (VCO2); and the other variables of conventional exercise testing. In addition, in specific situations, pulse oximetry and flow-volume loops during and after exertion are measured. The CPET provides joint data analysis that allows complete assessment of the cardiovascular, respiratory, muscular and metabolic systems during exertion, being considered gold standard for cardiorespiratory functional assessment.1-6The CPET allows defining mechanisms related to low functional capacity that can cause symptoms, such as dyspnea, and correlate them with changes in the cardiovascular, pulmonary and skeletal muscle systems. Furthermore, it can be used to provide the prognostic assessment of patients with heart or lung diseases, and in the preoperative period, in addition to aiding in a more careful exercise prescription to healthy subjects, athletes and patients with heart or lung diseases.Similarly to CPET clinical use, its research also increases, with the publication of several scientific contributions from Brazilian researchers in high-impact journals.Therefore, this study aimed at providing a comprehensive review on the applicability of CPET to different clinical situations, in addition to serving as a practical guide for the interpretation of that test.

Nota: These guidelines are for information purposes and should not replace the clinical judgment of a physician, who must ultimately determine the appropriate treatment for each patient.

The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701).

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )