Background: Central aortic blood pressure (cBP) is a valuable predictor of cardiovascular risk. The lack of fully automated measurement devices impeded an implementation in daily clinical practice so far. The present study compares two novel automated oscillometric devices with invasively measured cBP. Methods: From March 2017 to March 2018, we enrolled consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary angiography to this cross-sectional study. Noninvasive assessment of cBP was performed by the SphygmoCor XCEL device and the Mobil-O-Graph NG device simultaneously to invasive measurement. Results: Our study included 502 patients (228 women, 274 men) with a mean age of 67.9 ± 11.6 years. The noninvasive measurement of cBP was successful in 498 patients (99%) with SphygmoCor XCEL device and in 441 patients (88%) with Mobil-O-Graph NG device (P = 0.451). Measurements of both devices revealed a high correlation to invasively measured systolic (SphygmoCor R 2 0.864, P < 0.001; Mobil-O-Graph R 2 0.763, P < 0.001) and diastolic (SphygmoCor R 2 0.772, P < 0.001; Mobil-O-Graph R 2 0.618, P < 0.001) cBP. Both devices slightly underestimated systolic and overestimated diastolic central blood pressure: biases were −5.0 ± 7.7/0.5 ± 6.2 mmHg with SphygmoCor XCEL and −6.0 ± 10.4/3.6 ± 8.3 mmHg with Mobil-O-Graph NG device. Correlations (R 2) were higher and biases were lower with the SphygmoCor device (P < 0.001 each). Conclusion: The present study is the largest validation study of noninvasive cBP measurement techniques so far and shows that two current automated oscillometric monitors are able to assess cBP with acceptable accuracy. Automated oscillometric devices may facilitate the implementation of cBP in daily clinical practice.

Background: Two fully automated oscillometric devices have become available for the noninvasive assessment of central aortic blood pressure (BP). They tend, however, to underestimate SBP. It has been proposed that calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP may reduce this bias. The present work compares the accuracy of these two calibrations in the Mobil-O-Graph. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of the largest validation study on noninvasive assessment of central BP so far. Data on both calibration approaches were available in 159 patients without atrial fibrillation, who underwent simultaneous invasive and noninvasive assessment of central BP. Noninvasive BP measurements were conducted using the SphygmoCor XCEL (calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP only) and the Mobil-O-Graph (calibration by both systolic/diastolic and mean/diastolic brachial BP). Results: Measurements of both devices and both calibration methods revealed highly significant correlations for systolic and diastolic central BP with invasively assessed BP (P < 0.001 each). Calibration by mean/diastolic and systolic/diastolic BP yielded similar correlations for central DBP (R 2 0.56 vs. R 2 0.55, P = 0.919). Correlation of central SBP, however, was significantly lower using calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP (R 2 0.86 vs. R 2 0.74, P = 0.002). Numerically, the SphygmoCor device revealed the highest correlation (R 2 0.92 for central SBP and 0.72 for central DBP; P < 0.001 each). Calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP was associated with an underestimation of central SBP using both the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph. Calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP, instead, was associated with an overestimation, which was numerically comparable (4.8 ± 11.3 vs. −4.2 ± 8.0). The calibration method had little effects on the biases of diastolic measurements. Conclusion: Calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP led to an overestimation instead of underestimation of central SBP without improving accuracy. Hence, mean/diastolic calibration is not necessarily superior to systolic/diastolic calibration and the optimal approach has to be determined in a device-specific manner.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Interventional closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative option to stroke prophylaxis, particularly in multimorbid patients with a high risk of bleeding under oral anticoagulation. Due to the multiple comorbidities, the prognosis of patients is reduced, and the clinical benefit of the procedure is therefore questionable in the individual patient.Hypothesis: The present study aims to identify independent preprocedural risk factors to improve risk stratification in these highly selected patients. Methods: This study consecutively included 128 patients who received an interventional LAA occlusion with Amplatzer device (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minnesota). The preinterventional risk assessment was performed with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were thromboembolic events and severe bleeding.Results: During a follow-up of 781 ± 498 days the primary endpoint (all-cause mortality) was reached in 35 patients (27%). The only independent predictor of mid-term mortality was a logistic EuroSCORE II > 2% (Hazard risk [HR] 4.55, confidence interval [CI] 1.599-12.966, P = .005). In our study, 33 patients (26%) suffered from endstage renal disease which was not associated with increased mortality (P = .371), increased thromboembolic events (P = .475), or severe bleeding (P = .613). Conclusions:In patients undergoing interventional LAA occlusion, preprocedural assessment of logistic EuroSCORE II provide independent prognostic information.This parameter might help to improve risk stratification in these highly selected patients. In contrast, terminal renal failure was not associated with a significantly worse outcome. K E Y W O R D Sinterventional left atrial appendage occlusion, logistic EuroSCORE II, mid-term mortality, risk stratification

No abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Acute kidney injury (AK) is a frequent condition in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. There are only few reports on the use of urinary biomarkers in COVID-19 and no data comparing the prognostic use of individual biomarkers in the prediction of adverse outcome so far. METHOD We performed a prospective monocentric study on the value of urinary biomarkers to predict the composite endpoint of a transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality. A total of 41 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. Urine samples were obtained shortly after admission in order to assess neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), calprotectin and vanin-1. RESULTS We identified calprotectin as a predictor of a severe course of the disease, requiring intensive care treatment (AUC 0.728, P = .016). Positive and negative predictive values were 78.6% and 76.9%, respectively, using a cut-off concentration of 127.8 ng/mL. NGAL tended to predict COVID-19 associated AKI without reaching statistical significance (AUC 0.669, P = .053). The best parameter in the prediction of in-hospital mortality was NGAL as well (AUC 0.674, P = .077). KIM-1 and vanin-1 did not reach significance for any of the investigated endpoints. CONCLUSION While KIM-1 and vanin-1 did not provide prognostic clinical information in the context of COVID-19, this study shows that urinary calprotectin and NGAL concentrations are independent predictors of an adverse course of the disease. Calprotectin and NGAL may thereby constitute helpful adjuncts in the identification of patients at increased risk who may benefit from upcoming antiviral agents to SARS-CoV-2.