Nuccia Morici’s research while affiliated with Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi and other places

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is an ominous condition with a high mortality rate. The diagnosis of CS relies upon signs and/or symptoms of end-organ hypoperfusion. However, the combination of hypoperfusion and systemic congestion poses a serious risk and significantly increases mortality rates in critically ill patients. Purpose This study evaluated organ perfusion pressure (OPP), calculated as mean arterial pressure (MAP) minus central venous pressure (CVP), as a predictor of outcomes in CS. Methods All consecutive patients with CS related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) enrolled in the multicenter Altshock-2 registry between January 2020 and November 2023 were selected. Only patients with both OPP and primary endpoint data available were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results 316 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (mean age: 64±13 years, 62 [20%] females, mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 24%±10%, mean MAP: 71±16 mmHg, mean CVP: 12±6 mmHg). Mean OPP was 59.1±17.3 mmHg. In-hospital all-cause death occurred in 117 (37%) patients. In univariable analysis, higher OPP was associated with a significantly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause death both as a continuous variable (HR 0.981 per mmHg [95%CI 0.969-0.993], p-value=0.003) and dichotomized (HR 0.522 [95%CI 0.354-0.770], p-value=0.001) according to the optimal cut-off value of 59.5 mmHg identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (specificity 66.4%, sensitivity 53.8%, area under the curve 0.61). OPP greater than 59.5 mmHg predicted significantly reduced risk of in-hospital all-cause death among ADHF-CS patients (HR 0.315 [95%CI 0.151-0.660], p-value=0.002), but not among AMI-CS patients (HR 0.628 [95%CI 0.392-1.007], p-value=0.054). After multivariable adjustment for significant clinical data available at first bedside assessment, namely age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, higher OPP still predicted significantly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause death (HR 0.984 [95%CI 0.972-0.996], p-value=0.010). In univariable analysis, OPP was also associated with significantly increased long-term overall survival (p-value<0.001), but not with worsening renal function at 24 hours after CS onset, in-hospital length of stay or the composite of left ventricular assist device implantation or heart transplantation. Conclusions In this multicenter, observational, prospective study of patients hospitalized for CS, higher OPP on admission was associated with a significantly reduced risk of in-hospital all-cause death.

Aims Women and older patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatment strategies following acute coronary syndrome. This study aims to evaluate the benefit of invasive vs. conservative strategy of older women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). Methods and results This analysis from an individual patient data meta-analysis included six RCTs comparing an invasive management with a conservative management in older NSTEACS patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, urgent revascularization, and stroke. Follow-up time was censored at 1 year. In total, 717 women [median age 84.0 (interquartile range 81.0–87.0) years] were included. The primary endpoint occurred in 21.0% in the invasive strategy vs. 27.8% in the conservative strategy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52–1.13, P = 0.160 using random effect] at 1-year follow-up. The invasive management was associated with reduced risk of MI (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32–0.73, P < 0.001) and urgent revascularization (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.98, P = 0.045). No significant differences were identified in the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke. Among males, there was no significant association between the treatment strategy and primary or secondary endpoints. Conclusion An invasive strategy compared with a conservative strategy did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or MI in older NSTEACS women at 1-year follow-up. An invasive strategy reduced the individual risk of MI and urgent revascularization. Our results support the beneficial role of the invasive strategy in older NSTEACS women. Registration This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819).

Introduction Heart transplantation (HTx) serves as the gold-standard therapy for end-stage heart failure, yet patients often experience physical deconditioning and cognitive impairments post-surgery. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has shown promise in the HTx context. However, uncertainty surrounds the impact of biological sex. Accordingly, the aim of this paper was to investigate the impact of biological sex in a cohort of patients with HTx early admitted to a residential CR program. Methods This was a retrospective analysis involving patients who underwent HTx at Niguarda Hospital and who subsequently participated in a CR program at IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi, Milan, Italy, between 2010 and 2022. The primary endpoint was time to event (in months), with an event defined as a composite outcome of whichever occurred first of death, allograft rejection, or cardiac allograft vasculopathy up to 30 months follow-up. Results In a total of 129 patients, 60 % male, and 40 % female, baseline characteristics presented comparably between the sexes. At 6 months, no significant sex differences were observed for the primary composite outcome. However, at 30 months, females exhibited a significantly lower incidence of the primary composite outcome and an increased survival rate. Multivariable analysis confirmed a protective effect of female sex against mortality (F vs. M, HR 0.164, 95 % CI 0.038–0.716, P = 0.0161). Conclusions Despite limitations, our findings emphasize that sex affects post-HTx long-term follow-up following CR discharge, with more favorable outcomes for female recipients. In an era of tailored management algorithms, it is imperative to take into account the gender gap even in cardiac rehabilitation.

Aims To describe the use and the relation to outcome of different ventilation strategies in a contemporary, large, prospective registry of cardiogenic shock patients. Methods and results Among 657 patients enrolled from March 2020 to November 2023, 198 (30.1%) received oxygen therapy (OT), 96 (14.6%) underwent non‐invasive ventilation (NIV), and 363 (55.3%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV). Patients in the iMV group were significantly younger compared to those in the NIV and OT groups (63 vs. 69 years, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups regarding cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with SCAI B and C were more frequently treated with OT and NIV compared to iMV (65.1% and 65.4% vs. 42.6%, respectively, p > 0.001), while the opposite trend was observed in SCAI D patients (12% and 12.2% vs. 30.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). All‐cause mortality at 24 h did not differ amongst the three groups. The 60‐day mortality rates were 40.2% for the iMV group, 26% for the OT group, and 29.3% for the NIV group ( p = 0.005), even after excluding patients with cardiac arrest at presentation. In the multivariate analysis including SCAI stages, NIV was not associated with worse mortality compared to iMV (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 0.85–4.56), even in more severe SCAI stages such as D. Conclusions Compared to previous studies, we observed a rising trend in the utilization of NIV among cardiogenic shock patients, irrespective of aetiology and SCAI stages. In this clinical scenario, NIV emerges as a safe option for appropriately selected patients.

Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. There can be many reasons that cause MI, such as a sedentary lifestyle, a disordered diet, harmful habits such as smoking and alcoholism, concomitant congenital or acquired systemic pathologies. Patients who survive the acute event suffer a functional alteration of multiple body systems. The various cardiology associations recommend starting a rehabilitation process, pursuing the main objective of improving the patient’s health status. A negative consequence that can be linked to MI is the dysfunction of the main breathing muscle, the diaphragm. The diaphragm is essential not only for respiratory mechanisms but also for adequate production of cardiac pressures. Post-MI patients present a reduction in the performance of the diaphragm muscle, and this condition can become a risk factor for further relapses or for the onset of heart failure. The article reviews the rehabilitation path for post-MI patients, to highlight the absence given to the diaphragm in the recovery of the patient’s health status. The text reviews the post-MI diaphragmatic adaptation to highlight the importance of including targeted training for the diaphragm muscle in the rehabilitation process.

The optimal pharmacological management of patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) managed outside the hospital remains largely unsettled. In the investigator-initiated, open-label CONVINCE trial, 59 outpatients with COVID-19 were randomized (2 × 2 factorial design) to colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory comparison) or edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation comparison). The study had two co-primary outcomes (one for each randomization): major vascular thrombotic events (MVTE, the composite of asymptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis [DVT], symptomatic proximal or distal DVT, symptomatic pulmonary embolism or thrombosis, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, non-central nervous system embolism and death) at 25 ± 3 days for the anticoagulation comparison and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates or freedom from death or hospitalizations at 14 ± 3 days for the anti-inflammatory comparison. The trial was prematurely halted due to slow recruitment and availability of effective vaccines. Overall, 16 patients were randomized to edoxaban plus colchicine, 13 to edoxaban, 14 to colchicine and 16 to standard of care. The study showed no significant difference in the two co-primary outcomes with edoxaban and/or colchicine versus standard of care. However, these results should be interpreted in light of the low-risk profile of included patients and the premature termination of the trial.

Background and Aims A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5–10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70–1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65–1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78–1.40). Conclusions This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.