Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia最新文献

[This corrects the article doi: 10.36660/abc.20230203] [This corrects the article doi: 10.36660/abc.20220734].

Background: The indirect measurement of blood pressure (BP) is known to be influenced by many factors such as the technique, observer, and equipment; however, the influence of arm composition has not been investigated yet.

Objective: To identify the influence of arm fat on the indirect measurement of blood pressure using statistical inference and machine learning models.

Methods: Cross-sectional study, with 489 healthy young adults aged from 18 to 29 years old. Measurements of arm length (AL), arm circumference (AC) and arm fat index (AFI) were taken. BP was measured in both arms simultaneously. Data were processed using Python 3.0 and its specific packages for descriptive analysis, regression and cluster analysis. Significance levels: 5% for all calculations.

Results: BP and anthropometric measurements were different between the hemi-bodies. In the right arm, systolic blood pressure (SBP), AL and AFI were higher, while AC was similar compared with the left arm. AL and AC showed positive correlation with SBP. According to the regression model, for a fixed value of AC and AL, SBP readings could be reduced by a mean of 1.80 mmHg in the right arm, and 1.62 mmHg in the left arm for every 10% increase in AFI. Clustering analysis corroborated the regression results.

Conclusion: There was a significant influence of AFI on BP readings. SBP had a positive correlation with AL and AC, and a negative correlation with AFI, suggesting the need for further investigations on the relationship between BP and percentages of arm muscle and fat.

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a puzzling clinical phenomenon with an unclear prognosis, characterized by evidence of myocardial infarction (MI) with normal or near-normal coronary arteries on angiography1. Currently, there are no guidelines for management, and many patients are discharged without a determined etiology, often meaning that optimal treatment gets postponed.We report three MINOCA case studies with main pathophysiological cardiac causes, particularly epicardial, microvascular, and non-ischemic, prompting differential management. The patients presented with acute chest pain, troponin raise, and no angiographically significant coronary disease.In this study, we analyzed the etiology, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of MINOCA concerning the relevant literature.MINOCA is considered to be a dynamic working diagnosis, including coronary, myocardial, and non-coronary disorders. Prospective studies and registries are needed to improve patient care and outcome.

Background: There are limited real-world data on the clinical course of untreated coronary lesions according to their functional severity.

Objective: To evaluate the 5-year clinical outcomes of patients with revascularized lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.8 and patients with non-revascularized lesions with FFR > 0.8.

Methods: The FFR assessment was performed in 218 patients followed for up to 5 years. Participants were classified based on FFR into ischemia group (≤ 0.8, intervention group, n = 55), low-normal FFR group (> 0.8-0.9, n = 91), and high-normal FFR group (> 0.9, n = 72). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and need for repeat revascularization. The significance level was set at 0.05; therefore, results with a p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: Most patients were male (62.8%) with a mean age of 64.1 years. Diabetes was present in 27%. On coronary angiography, the severity of stenosis was 62% in the ischemia group, 56.4% in the low-normal FFR group, and 54.3% in the high-normal FFR group (p<0.05). Mean follow-up was 3.5 years. The incidence of MACEs was 25.5%, 13.2%, and 11.1%, respectively (p=0.037). MACE incidence did not differ significantly between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups.

Conclusion: Patients with FFR indicative of ischemia had poorer outcomes than those in non-ischemia groups. There was no difference in the incidence of events between the low-normal and high-normal FFR groups. Long-term studies with a large sample size are needed to better assess cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate coronary stenosis with FFR values between 0.8 and 1.0.