Valor pronóstico del incremento de la tensión arterial sistólica con el ejercicio en pacientes hipertensos con enfermedad coronaria conocida o sospechada.

La asociación entre un incremento exagerado de la presión arterial sistólica con el ejercicio (IEPASE) y la probabilidad de eventos cardiovasculares es controvertida. Nuestro propósito fue determinar la posible asociación de un IEPASE con la supervivencia y con el riesgo de eventos cardíacos graves en pacientes hipertensos con enfermedad coronaria conocida o sospechada. Se trata de un estudio retrospectivo y observacional sobre una muestra de 5.226 pacientes con historia de hipertensión arterial y enfermedad coronaria conocida o sospechada referidos a ecocardiografía de ejercicio. El IEPASE se definió como un incremento de la presión arterial sistólica con el ejercicio igual o superior al percentil 95 de esta población (80 mmHg). Los objetivos fueron mortalidad total, mortalidad de origen cardíaco e infarto de miocardio (IM). En un seguimiento medio de 4,7 años, se registraron 978 muertes (371 de origen cardíaco) y 798 IM. Las tasas anuales de mortalidad, mortalidad de origen cardíaco e IM fueron del 2,73; 0,83 y 2,63% en pacientes con IEPASE y de 4,4; 1,58 y 3,98%, respectivamente en aquellos sin IEPASE (p < 0,001; p = 0,012 y p = 0,014, respectivamente). Tras un ajuste multivariado, el IEPASE resultó predictor de mortalidad por cualquier causa (HR: 0,70; IC 95%: 0,52-0,95; p = 0,023) e IM (HR: 0,69; IC 95%: 0,50-0,95; p = 0,022), pero la asociación con mortalidad cardiaca no alcanzó significación estadística (HR: 0,72; IC 95%: 0,43-1,20; p = 0,2). El IEPASE se asoció con mayor probabilidad de supervivencia y menor riesgo de IM en pacientes hipertensos con enfermedad coronaria conocida o sospechada.

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.