BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of protection masks is essential to reduce contagions. However, public opinion reports an associated subjective shortness of breath. We evaluated cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and during maximal exertion to highlight any differences with the use of protection masks.MethodsTwelve healthy subjects underwent three cardiopulmonary exercise tests: without wearing protection mask, with surgical and with FFP2 mask. Dyspnea was assessed by Borg Scale. Standard pulmonary function tests were also performed.ResultsAll the subjects (40.8±12.4 years; 6 males) completed the protocol with no adverse event. At spirometry, from no mask to surgical to FFP2, a progressive reduction of FEV1 and FVC was observed (3.94±0.91 l, 3.23±0.81 l, 2.94±0.98 l and 4.70±1.21 l, 3.77±1.02 l, 3.52±1.21 l, respectively, p<0.001). Rest ventilation, O2 uptake (V̇O2) and CO2 production (VCO2) were progressively lower with a reduction of respiratory rate. At peak exercise, subjects revealed a progressively higher Borg scale when wearing surgical and FFP2. Accordingly, at peak exercise, V̇O2 (31.0±23.4, 27.5±6.9, 28.2±8.8 ml/kg/min, p=0.001), ventilation (92±26, 76±22, 72±21 l, p=0.003), respiratory rate (42±8, 38±5, 37±4, p=0.04) and tidal volume (2.28±0.72, 2.05±0.60, 1.96±0.65 l, p=0.001) were gradually lower. We did not observed a significant difference in oxygen saturation.ConclusionsProtection masks are associated with significant but modest worsening of spirometry and cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and peak exercise. The effect is driven by a ventilation reduction due to an increased airflow resistance. However, since exercise ventilatory limitation is far from being reached, their use is safe even during maximal exercise, with a slight reduction in performance.

BackgroundLong QT syndrome type 3 (LQT3) is a lethal disease caused by gain-of-function mutations in the SCN5A gene, coding for the alpha-subunit of the sodium channel NaV1.5. Mexiletine is used to block late sodium current and to shorten QT interval in LQT3 patients.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether mexiletine prevents arrhythmic events (arrhythmic syncope, aborted cardiac arrest, or sudden cardiac death) in LQT3 patients.MethodsThe endpoint of this retrospective cohort study, which studied consecutive LQT3 patients who were referred to our center and treated with mexiletine, was to evaluate the antiarrhythmic efficacy of mexiletine by comparing the number of arrhythmic events per patient and the annual rate of arrhythmic events during observation periods of equal duration before and after the beginning of therapy with mexiletine.ResultsThe study population comprised 34 LQT3 patients, 19 (56%) of whom were male. The median age at beginning of treatment with mexiletine was 22 years, and median QTc interval before therapy 509 ms. The median duration of oral mexiletine therapy was 36 months, at an average daily dose of 8 ± 0.5 mg/kg. Mexiletine significantly shortened QTc (by 63 ± 6 ms; p < 0.0001) and reduced the percentage of patients with arrhythmic events (from 22% to 3%; p = 0.031), the mean number of arrhythmic events per patient (from 0.43 ± 0.17 to 0.03 ± 0.03; p = 0.027), and the annual rate of arrhythmic events (from 10.3% to 0.7%; p = 0.0097).ConclusionsBesides shortening QTc interval, mexiletine caused a major reduction of life-threatening arrhythmic events in LQT3 patients, thus representing an efficacious therapeutic strategy.

Background Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was proposed as potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective We set-up a multicenter Italian collaboration to investigate the relationship between HCQ therapy and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Methods In a retrospective observational study, 3,451 unselected patients hospitalized in 33 clinical centers in Italy, from February 19, 2020 to May 23, 2020, with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were analyzed. The primary end-point in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received HCQ with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores, with the addition of subgroup analyses. Results Out of 3,451 COVID-19 patients, 76.3% received HCQ. Death rates (per 1,000 person-days) for patients receiving or not HCQ were 8.9 and 15.7, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found 30% lower risk of death in patients receiving HCQ (HR=0.70; 95%CI: 0.59 to 0.84; E-value=1.67). Secondary analyses yielded similar results. The inverse association of HCQ with inpatient mortality was particularly evident in patients having elevated C-reactive protein at entry. Conclusions HCQ use was associated with a 30% lower risk of death in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Within the limits of an observational study and awaiting results from randomized controlled trials, these data do not discourage the use of HCQ in inpatients with COVID-19.

Introduction: A hypercoagulable condition was described in patients with COVID-19 and proposed as a possible pathogenic mechanism contributing to disease progression and lethality. Aim: We evaluated if in-hospital administration of heparin improved survival in a large cohort of Italian COVID-19 patients. Methods: In a retrospective observational study, 2,574 unselected patients hospitalised in 30 clinical centres in Italy from February 19, 2020 to May 23, 2020 with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were analysed. The primary end-point in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received heparin (low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH)) with patients who did not. We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores. Results: Out of 2,574 COVID-19 patients, 70.1% received heparin. LMWH was largely the most used formulation (99.5%). Death rates for patients receiving heparin or not were 7.4 and 14.0 per 1,000 person-days, respectively. After adjustment for propensity scores, we found a 40% lower risk of death in patients receiving heparin (HR=0.60; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.74; E-value=2.04). This association was particularly evident in patients with a higher severity of disease or strong coagulation activation. Conclusions: In-hospital heparin treatment was associated with lower mortality, particularly in severely ill COVID-19 patients and in those with strong coagulation activation. The results from randomised clinical trials are eagerly awaited to provide clear-cut recommendations.

The study provides an estimator of risk of LAEs in LQTS that allows a granular estimate of 5-year arrhythmic risk and demonstrate the superiority of nadolol in reducing the risk of LAEs in LQTS.

The high risk of life-threatening arrhythmias in patients with ARVC spans from adolescence to advanced age, reaching its peak between ages 21 and 40 years. Atrial fibrillation, syncope, participation in strenuous exercise after the diagnosis of ARVC, hemodynamically tolerated sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, and male sex predicted lethal arrhythmias at follow-up. The lack of efficacy of antiarrhythmic therapy and the life-saving role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator highlight the importance of risk stratification for patient management.

We demonstrated for the first time that treatment with HQ was associated with a lower incidence of LAE in SQTS patients. These data point to the importance that quinidine, that in several countries has been removed from the market, remains available worldwide for patients with SQTS. In the present study, therapy with HQ has been proven to be safe, with a relatively low rate of side effects.

The hypothesis that been set forward that use of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System (RAAS) inhibitors is associated with COVID−19 severity. We setup a multicenter Italian collaboration (CORIST Project, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04318418) to retrospectively investigate the relationship between RAAS inhibitors and COVID−19 in-hospital mortality. We also carried out an updated meta-analysis on the relevant studies. Methods: We analyzed 4069 unselected patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalized in 34 clinical centers in Italy from February 19, 2020 to May 23, 2020. The primary end-point in a time-to event analysis was in-hospital death, comparing patients who received angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEeI) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) with patients who did not. Articles for the meta-analysis were retrieved until July 13th, 2020 by searching in web-based libraries, and data were combined using the general variance-based method. Results: Out of 4069 COVID−19 patients, 13.5% and 13.3% received ACE-I or ARB, respectively. Use of neither ACE-I nor ARB was associated with mortality (multivariable hazard ratio (HR) adjusted also for COVID−19 treatments: 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.20 and HR = 0.89, 0.67-1.19 for ACE-I and ARB, respectively). Findings were similar restricting the analysis to hypertensive (N = 2057) patients (HR = 1.00, 0.78-1.26 and HR = 0.88, 0.65-1.20) or when ACE-I or ARB were considered as a single group. Results from the meta-analysis (19 studies, 29,057 COVID−19 adult patients, 9700 with hypertension) confirmed the absence of association. Conclusions: In this observational study and meta-analysis of the literature, ACE-I or ARB use was not associated with severity or in-hospital mortality in COVID−19 patients.