The diagnostic approach and management of hypertension in the emergency department

Hypertension urgency and emergency represents a challenging condition in which clinicians should determine the assessment and/or treatment of these patients. Whether the elevation of blood pressure (BP) levels is temporary, in need of treatment, or reflects a chronic hypertensive state is not always easy to unravel. Unfortunately, current guidelines provide few recommendations concerning the diagnostic approach and treatment of emergency department patients presenting with severe hypertension. Target organ damage determines: the timeframe in which BP should be lowered, target BP levels as well as the drug of choice to use. It's important to distinguish hypertensive emergency from hypertensive urgency, usually a benign condition that requires more likely an outpatient visit and treatment.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism, ACE activity, and COVID-19: A rather controversial hypothesis. A case-control study

Accumulating data has shown a contribution of the renin‐angiotensin system in COVID‐19 pathogenesis. The role of angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism as a risk factor in developing COVID‐19 disease comes from epidemiological data and is controversially discussed. We conducted a retrospective case‐control study and assessed the impact of ACE I/D genotype in COVID‐19 disease prevalence and severity. In 81 COVID‐19 patients explicitly characterized and 316 controls, recruited during the first wave of COVID‐19 pandemic, ACE I/D genotype, and ACE activity were determined. A generalized linear model was used and Poisson regression analysis estimated the risk ratios (RRs) of alleles and genotypes for disease severity. DD patients had almost 2.0‐fold increased risk (RR: 1.886, confidence limit [CL] 95%: 1.266–2.810, p = 0.0018) of developing a more severe disease when contrasted to ID and II individuals, as did D allele carriers compared to I carriers (RR: 1.372; CL 95%: 1.051–1.791; p = 0.0201). ACE activity (expressed as arbitrary units, AU/L) was lower in patients (3.62 ± 0.26) than in controls (4.65 ± 0.13) (p < 0.0001), and this reduction was observed mainly among DD patients compared to DD controls (3.97 ± 0.29 vs. 5.38 ± 0.21; p = 0.0014). Our results demonstrate that ACE DD genotype may predispose to COVID‐19 increased disease severity via a mechanism associated, at least in part, with the significant fall in their ACE activity. Our findings suggest a more complex pattern of synergy between this polymorphism and ACE activity in COVID‐19 patients compared to healthy individuals and set the grounds for large‐scale studies assessing ACE genotype‐based optimized therapies with ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.

In-hospital prognosis of patients with primary and secondary acute heart failure diagnosis

Introduction

Secondary acute heart failure (AHF) during hospitalization for another primary diagnosis is a frequent in-hospital complication.

Purpose

This analysis aims to describe differences in prognosis of these patients in comparison with patients admitted for AHF (primary AHF diagnosis) and also identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

Methods

This is a sub-analysis of the Acute Heart Failure Global Survey of Standard Treatment (ALARM-HF), which enrolled 4953 patients from 9 countries. All parameters univariately associated with in-hospital mortality in the primary and secondary AHF groups were included in the multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

Secondary AHF diagnosis was observed in 24.1% (N=1196) of the total study cohort. These patients demonstrated almost double all-cause in-hospital mortality rates compared to patients with primary AHF (16.9% versus 8.9%, p&lt;0.001).

In patients with primary AHF, negative prognostic factors included older age (&gt;75 years) (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.24–3.26, p=0.004), acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.57–4.69, p&lt;0.001), chronic renal disease (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.13–3.61, p=0.017), presence of cold extremities (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23–3.40, p=0.006), in-hospital treatment with CPAP (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.20–5.41, p=0.014), dobutamine (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.52–4.28, p&lt;0.001), dopamine (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.74–5.27, p&lt;0.001) and noradrenaline (OR 4.76, 95% CI 2.32–9.76, p&lt;0.001). Favorable predictors were systolic blood pressure ≥100 mmHg on admission (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.94, p=0.031), in-hospital treatment with ACEIs (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03–0.16, p&lt;0.001), ARBs (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13–0.70, p=0.005) and vitamin-K antagonists (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.007–0.44, p=0.006).

In secondary AHF, independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) &lt;40% (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.17–4.75, p=0.016), age &gt;75 years (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.09–4.54, p=0.026), ACS (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.50–8.39, p=0.004), diabetes (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.23–4.16, p=0.008), pre-admission treatment with digoxin (OR 7.27, 95% CI 1.83–28.87, p=0.005), in-hospital medication with dobutamine (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.28–4.61, p=0.006), dopamine (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.12–4.67, p=0.022) and noradrenaline (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.76–9.76, p=0.001). Covariates independently associated with survival benefit in secondary AHF were pre-admission treatment with diuretics (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09–0.88, p=0.030) and in-hospital treatment with ACEIs (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07–0.39, p&lt;0.001) and aspirin (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11–0.69, p=0.006).

Conclusion

Patients with secondary AHF experienced a more complicated in-hospital course with worse prognosis, compared to primary AHF. LVEF &lt;40%, age &gt;75 years, ACS, diabetes, pre-admission treatment with digitalis, in-hospital medication with dobutamine, dopamine and noradrenaline were identified as independent negative prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality in secondary AHF patients.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

Beneficial Effects of Vaccination on Cardiovascular Events: Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, Heart Failure

Influenza and pneumococcal infections have been suggested to be potential risk factors for causing adverse cardiovascular events, especially in high-risk patients. Vaccination against respiratory infections in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) could serve as a potential cost-effective intervention to improve their clinical outcomes and cardiac societies have encouraged it. Previous studies have shown that influenza vaccination reduce mortality, acute coronary syndromes and hospitalization in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or heart failure (HF). However, there is a paucity of randomized prospective clinical trials in the field of the pneumococcal vaccination, and additional higher-quality evidence is needed. Furthermore, questions around the role of vaccination in the primary prevention of CVD, the optimal dose and timing are largely unanswered. The pathophysiologic mechanism in which vaccination provides cardiovascular protection may be related to the modification of the immune-inflammatory model of atherogenesis. The present review summarizes the current evidence and understanding for vaccination against influenza and streptococcus pneumoniae in CHD, HF and stroke and highlights its beneficial effect in the reduction of adverse cardiovascular events.