Cardiogenic shock (CS), as the most severe form of heart failure, is associated with very high mortality rates despite therapeutic advances in the last decades. Gender differences in outcomes have been widely reported regarding several cardiovascular diseases. The aim of our study was to evaluate potential gender disparities in clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of all (n = 138) patients admitted to the Acute Cardiac Care Unit of a tertiary hospital from 2013 to 2019. Information on demographic characteristics, past medical history, haemodynamic and clinical status at admission, therapeutic management, and in-hospital outcomes was retrospectively collected. Women represented 31.88% of the cohort, were significantly older than the men and had a lower proportion of smokers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Most CSs in both groups were AMI-related. Left ventricular ejection fraction at admission was higher in women, who were less likely to receive vasopressors. No differences were observed regarding mechanical circulatory support use and in-patient outcomes, with age being the only factor associated with in-hospital mortality on multivariate analysis.

Introduction: The worldwide pandemic, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel infection with serious clinical manifestations, including death. Our aim is to describe the first non-ICU Spanish deceased series with COVID-19, comparing specifically between unexpected and expected deaths. Methods: In this single-centre study, all deceased inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had died from March 4 to April 16, 2020 were consecutively included. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, were analyzed and compared between groups. Factors associated with unexpected death were identified by multivariable logistic regression methods. Results: In total, 324 deceased patients were included. Median age was 82 years (IQR 76–87); 55.9% males. The most common cardiovascular risk factors were hypertension (78.4%), hyperlipidemia (57.7%), and diabetes (34.3%). Other common comorbidities were chronic kidney disease (40.1%), chronic pulmonary disease (30.3%), active cancer (13%), and immunosuppression (13%). The Confusion, BUN, Respiratory Rate, Systolic BP and age ≥65 (CURB-65) score at admission was >2 in 40.7% of patients. During hospitalization, 77.8% of patients received antivirals, 43.3% systemic corticosteroids, and 22.2% full anticoagulation. The rate of bacterial co-infection was 5.5%, and 105 (32.4%) patients had an increased level of troponin I. The median time from initiation of therapy to death was 5 days (IQR 3.0–8.0). In 45 patients (13.9%), the death was exclusively attributed to COVID-19, and in 254 patients (78.4%), both COVID-19 and the clinical status before admission contributed to death. Progressive respiratory failure was the most frequent cause of death (92.0%). Twenty-five patients (7.7%) had an unexpected death. Factors independently associated with unexpected death were male sex, chronic kidney disease, insulin-treated diabetes, and functional independence. Conclusions: This case series provides in-depth characterization of hospitalized non-ICU COVID-19 patients who died in Madrid. Male sex, insulin-treated diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and independency for activities of daily living are predictors of unexpected death.

The number of structural aortic valve procedures has increased significantly in recent years. Pre-procedural planning and follow-up with noninvasive testing are essential. Although cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard for assessing left ventricular mass, volume, and function, it is not performed routinely in patients undergoing structural interventions. CMR can provide useful information for pre- and post-procedural assessment, including quantification of cardiac function, myocardial assessment, grading of the severity of valvular heart disease, and evaluation of extracardiac anatomy while avoiding the limitations of other non-invasive modalities. Here, we review the use cases, future perspectives, and limitations of CMR for patients undergoing structural aortic valve procedures.