Clustering of clinical and echocardiographic phenotypes of covid-19 patients.

We sought to divide COVID-19 patients into distinct phenotypical subgroups using echocardiography and clinical markers to elucidate the pathogenesis of the disease and its heterogeneous cardiac involvement. A total of 506 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection underwent complete evaluation, including echocardiography, at admission. A k-prototypes algorithm applied to patients' clinical and imaging data at admission partitioned the patients into four phenotypical clusters: Clusters 0 and 1 were younger and healthier, 2 and 3 were older with worse cardiac indexes, and clusters 1 and 3 had a stronger inflammatory response. The clusters manifested very distinct survival patterns (C-index for the Cox proportional hazard model 0.77), with survival best for cluster 0, intermediate for 1-2 and worst for 3. Interestingly, cluster 1 showed a harsher disease course than cluster 2 but with similar survival. Clusters obtained with echocardiography were more predictive of mortality than clusters obtained without echocardiography. Additionally, several echocardiography variables (E' lat, E' sept, E/e average) showed high discriminative power among the clusters. The results suggested that older infected males have a higher chance to deteriorate than older infected females. In conclusion, COVID-19 manifests differently for distinctive clusters of patients. These clusters reflect different disease manifestations and prognoses. Although including echocardiography improved the predictive power, its marginal contribution over clustering using clinical parameters only does not justify the burden of echocardiography data collection.

Systematic lung ultrasound in Omicron-type vs. wild-type COVID-19.

AIMS: Preliminary data suggested that patients with Omicron-type-Coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) have less severe lung disease compared with the wild-type-variant. We aimed to compare lung ultrasound (LUS) parameters in Omicron vs. wild-type COVID-19 and evaluate their prognostic implications. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two consecutive patients with Omicron-type-COVID-19 underwent LUS within 48 h of admission and were compared with propensity-matched wild-type patients (148 pairs). In the Omicron patients median, first and third quartiles of the LUS-score was 5 [2-12], and only 9% had normal LUS. The majority had either mild (≤5; 37%) or moderate (6-15; 39%), and 15% (≥15) had severe LUS-score. Thirty-six percent of patients had patchy pleural thickening (PPT). Factors associated with LUS-score in the Omicron patients included ischaemic-heart-disease, heart failure, renal-dysfunction, and C-reactive protein. Elevated left-filling pressure or right-sided pressures were associated with the LUS-score. Lung ultrasound-score was associated with mortality [odds ratio (OR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.18; P = 0.03] and with the combined endpoint of mortality and respiratory failure (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.07-1.22; P < 0.0001). Patients with the wild-type variant had worse LUS characteristics than the matched Omicron-type patients (PPT: 90 vs. 34%; P < 0.0001 and LUS-score: 8 [5, 12] vs. 5 [2, 10], P = 0.004), irrespective of disease severity. When matched only to the 31 non-vaccinated Omicron patients, these differences were attenuated. CONCLUSION: Lung ultrasound-score is abnormal in the majority of hospitalized Omicron-type patients. Patchy pleural thickening is less common than in matched wild-type patients, but the difference is diminished in the non-vaccinated Omicron patients. Nevertheless, even in this milder form of the disease, the LUS-score is associated with poor in-hospital outcomes.

The added predictive role of echocardiography in patients with mild or moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

AIMS: Recently, several therapeutic agents have decreased the progression to critical disease in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. However, their use is limited to patients with ≥1 clinical risk factor. We aimed to evaluate echocardiographic features that may aid in risk stratification for patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. METHODS: 278 consecutive patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 underwent prospective clinical and echocardiographic examination, ≤7 days of symptoms, as part of a predefined protocol. Analysis to identify echocardiographic predictors of outcome was performed. RESULTS: In the multivariable risk model, E/e', TAPSE, and pulmonary acceleration time (PAT) were associated with the composite outcome (p = 0.01, 0.005, 0.05, respectively). Stepwise analyses showed that the addition of echocardiography on top of having ≥1 clinical risk factor and even using each parameter separately improved the prediction of outcomes. If patients were re-categorized as high risk only if having both ≥1 clinical and ≥ 1 echocardiography risk parameter (E/e' > 8, TAPSE<1.8 cm, PAT<90 msec), or even one echo parameter separately, then specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy improved. If patients were re-classified as high risk if having either ≥1 clinical risk factor or ≥ 1 high-risk echocardiography parameter, all five individuals who were missed by the ≥1 risk factor "rule", were correctly diagnosed as high risk. Similar analyses, including only patients with mild disease, showed that the addition of TAPSE improved the prediction of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, a very limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient for improved outcome prediction, and may improve resource allocation for new anti-COVID-19 agents. TRANSLATIONAL ASPECT OF THE WORK: We show that among patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, several easily obtained echocardiographic findings are strongly correlated with mortality or progression to the need for invasive/non-invasive mechanical ventilation, even when adjusted for the presence or absence of ≥1 clinical risk factor. Furthermore, even a limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient to develop a strategy of risk stratification. We believe that our data have important implications for the clinicians involved in the acute treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Cardiologic Manifestations in Omicron-Type Versus Wild-Type COVID-19: A Systematic Echocardiographic Study.

Background Information about the cardiac manifestations of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 is limited. We performed a systematic prospective echocardiographic evaluation of consecutive patients hospitalized with the Omicron variant of COVID-19 infection and compared them with similarly recruited patients were propensity matched with the wild-type variant. Methods and Results A total of 162 consecutive patients hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 underwent complete echocardiographic evaluation within 24 hours of admission and were compared with propensity-matched patients with the wild-type variant (148 pairs). Echocardiography included left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic, right ventricular (RV), strain, and hemodynamic assessment. Echocardiographic parameters during acute infection were compared with historic exams in 62 patients with the Omicron variant and 19 patients with the wild-type variant who had a previous exam within 1 year. Of the patients, 85 (53%) had a normal echocardiogram. The most common cardiac pathology was RV dilatation and dysfunction (33%), followed by elevated LV filling pressure (E/e' ≥14, 29%) and LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <50%, 10%). Compared with the matched wild-type cohort, patients with Omicron had smaller RV end-systolic areas (9.3±4 versus 12.3±4 cm2; P=0.0003), improved RV function (RV fractional-area change, 53.2%±10% versus 39.7%±13% [P<0.0001]; RV S', 12.0±3 versus 10.7±3 cm/s [P=0.001]), and higher stroke volume index (35.6 versus 32.5 mL/m2; P=0.004), all possibly related to lower mean pulmonary pressure (34.6±12 versus 41.1±14 mm Hg; P=0.0001) and the pulmonary vascular resistance index (P=0.0003). LV systolic or diastolic parameters were mostly similar to the wild-type variant-matched cohort apart from larger LV size. However, in patients who had a previous echocardiographic exam, these LV abnormalities were recorded before acute Omicron infection, but not in the wild-type cohort. Numerous echocardiographic parameters were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (LV ejection fraction, stroke volume index, E/e', RV S'). Conclusions In patients with Omicron, RV function is impaired to a lower extent compared with the wild-type variant, possibly related to the attenuated pulmonary parenchymal and/or vascular disease. LV systolic and diastolic abnormalities are as common as in the wild-type variant but were usually recorded before acute infection and probably reflect background cardiac morbidity. Numerous LV and RV abnormalities are associated with adverse outcome in patients with Omicron.

QT Interval Prolongation Is a Novel Predictor of 1-Year Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 Infection.

Background: QT interval prolongation is common in critically ill patients and is associated with increased mortality. However, the predictive value of a prolonged corrected QT interval (QTc) for myocardial injury and long-term mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection is not well known. Purpose: To evaluate the association of prolonged QTc with myocardial injury and with 1-year mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Materials and Methods: A total of 335 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection were prospectively studied. All patients underwent a comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation within 48 h from admission. Using the Bazett formula, the QTc interval was calculated from the first ECG tracing recorded at the ER. QTc ≥ 440 ms in males and ≥450 ms in females was considered prolonged. Patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers and/or echocardiographic signs of myocardial dysfunction were considered to have myocardial injury. The predictive value of QTc prolongation for myocardial injury was calculated using a multivariate binary regression model. One-year mortality rate of patients with and without QTc prolongation was compared using the log-rank test, and a multivariate Cox regression model adjusting for multiple covariates was performed to evaluate the 1-year mortality risk. Results: One-hundred and nine (32.5%) patients had a prolonged QTc. Compared to patients without QTc prolongation, patients with prolonged QTc were older (70 ± 14.4 vs. 62.7 ± 16.6, p < 0.001), had more comorbidities, and presented with a more severe disease. Prolonged QTc was an independent predictor for severe or critical disease (adjusted HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.3-3.5; p = 0.002) and myocardial injury (adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22-3.5; p = 0.007). One-year mortality of patients with prolonged QTc was higher than those with no QTc prolongation (40.4% vs. 15.5; p < 0.001). Following adjustment to multiple covariates including myocardial injury and disease severity, QTc prolongation was found to be associated with increased 1-year mortality risk (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.06-2.68, p = 0.027). Conclusion: Prolonged QTc is associated with disease severity, myocardial injury and 1-year mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.

The added predictive role of echocardiography in patients with mild or moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019

Aims Recently, several therapeutic agents have decreased the progression to critical disease in patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. However, their use is limited to patients with ≥1 clinical risk factor. We aimed to evaluate echocardiographic features that may aid in risk stratification for patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. Methods 278 consecutive patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 underwent prospective clinical and echocardiographic examination, ≤7 days of symptoms, as part of a predefined protocol. Analysis to identify echocardiographic predictors of outcome was performed. Results In the multivariable risk model, E/e′, TAPSE, and pulmonary acceleration time (PAT) were associated with the composite outcome (p = 0.01, 0.005, 0.05, respectively). Stepwise analyses showed that the addition of echocardiography on top of having ≥1 clinical risk factor and even using each parameter separately improved the prediction of outcomes. If patients were re-categorized as high risk only if having both ≥1 clinical and ≥ 1 echocardiography risk parameter (E/e′ > 8, TAPSE<1.8 cm, PAT<90 msec), or even one echo parameter separately, then specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy improved. If patients were re-classified as high risk if having either ≥1 clinical risk factor or ≥ 1 high-risk echocardiography parameter, all five individuals who were missed by the ≥1 risk factor “rule”, were correctly diagnosed as high risk. Similar analyses, including only patients with mild disease, showed that the addition of TAPSE improved the prediction of outcomes. Conclusions In patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, a very limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient for improved outcome prediction, and may improve resource allocation for new anti-COVID-19 agents. Translational aspect of the work We show that among patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, several easily obtained echocardiographic findings are strongly correlated with mortality or progression to the need for invasive/non-invasive mechanical ventilation, even when adjusted for the presence or absence of ≥1 clinical risk factor. Furthermore, even a limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient to develop a strategy of risk stratification. We believe that our data have important implications for the clinicians involved in the acute treatment of patients with COVID-19.

QT Interval Prolongation Is a Novel Predictor of 1-Year Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 Infection

Background QT interval prolongation is common in critically ill patients and is associated with increased mortality. However, the predictive value of a prolonged corrected QT interval (QTc) for myocardial injury and long-term mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection is not well known. Purpose To evaluate the association of prolonged QTc with myocardial injury and with 1-year mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Materials and Methods A total of 335 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection were prospectively studied. All patients underwent a comprehensive echocardiographic evaluation within 48 h from admission. Using the Bazett formula, the QTc interval was calculated from the first ECG tracing recorded at the ER. QTc ≥ 440 ms in males and ≥450 ms in females was considered prolonged. Patients with elevated cardiac biomarkers and/or echocardiographic signs of myocardial dysfunction were considered to have myocardial injury. The predictive value of QTc prolongation for myocardial injury was calculated using a multivariate binary regression model. One-year mortality rate of patients with and without QTc prolongation was compared using the log-rank test, and a multivariate Cox regression model adjusting for multiple covariates was performed to evaluate the 1-year mortality risk. Results One-hundred and nine (32.5%) patients had a prolonged QTc. Compared to patients without QTc prolongation, patients with prolonged QTc were older (70 ± 14.4 vs. 62.7 ± 16.6, p < 0.001), had more comorbidities, and presented with a more severe disease. Prolonged QTc was an independent predictor for severe or critical disease (adjusted HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.3–3.5;p = 0.002) and myocardial injury (adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22–3.5;p = 0.007). One-year mortality of patients with prolonged QTc was higher than those with no QTc prolongation (40.4% vs. 15.5;p < 0.001). Following adjustment to multiple covariates including myocardial injury and disease severity, QTc prolongation was found to be associated with increased 1-year mortality risk (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.06–2.68, p = 0.027). Conclusion Prolonged QTc is associated with disease severity, myocardial injury and 1-year mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection.

Pericardial Involvement in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Prevalence, Associates, and Clinical Implications.

Background The scope of pericardial involvement in COVID-19 infection is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence, associates, and clinical impact of pericardial involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with COVID-19 underwent clinical and echocardiographic examination, irrespective of clinical indication, within 48 hours as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Protocol included clinical symptoms and signs suggestive of pericarditis, calculation of modified early warning score, ECG and echocardiographic assessment for pericardial effusion, left and right ventricular systolic and diastolic function, and hemodynamics. We identified predictors of mortality and assessed the adjunctive value of pericardial effusion on top of clinical and echocardiographic parameters. The study included 530 patients. Pericardial effusion was found in 75 (14%), but only 17 patients (3.2%) fulfilled the criteria for acute pericarditis. Pericardial effusion was independently associated with modified early warning score, brain natriuretic peptide, and right ventricular function. It was associated with excess mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44; P=0.0005) in nonadjusted analysis. In multivariate analysis adjusted for modified early warning score and echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, it was marginally associated with mortality (HR, 1.86; P=0.06) and improvement in the model fit (P=0.07). Combined assessment for pericardial effusion with modified early warning score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion was an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 1.86; P=0.02) and improved model fit (P=0.02). Conclusions In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, pericardial effusion is prevalent, but rarely attributable to acute pericarditis. It is associated with myocardial dysfunction and mortality. A limited echocardiographic examination, including left ventricular ejection fraction, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and assessment for pericardial effusion, can contribute to outcome prediction.

Risk prediction in patients with COVID-19 based on haemodynamic assessment of left and right ventricular function.

AIMS: Cardiovascular involvement is common in COVID-19. We sought to describe the haemodynamic profiles of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and determine their association with mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection underwent clinical evaluation using the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and a full non-invasive echocardiographic haemodynamic evaluation, irrespective of clinical indication, as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Patients were stratified based on filling pressure and output into four groups. Multivariable Cox-Hazard analyses determined the association between haemodynamic parameters with mortality. Among 531 consecutive patients, 44% of patients had normal left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) haemodynamic status. In contrast to LV haemodynamic parameters, RV parameters worsened with higher MEWS stage. While RV parameters did not have incremental risk prediction value above MEWS, LV stroke volume index, E/e' ratio, and LV stroke work index were all independent predictors of outcome, particularly in severe disease. Patients with LV or RV with high filling pressure and low output had the worse outcome, and patients with normal haemodynamics had the best (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, almost half have normal left and right haemodynamics at presentation. RV but not LV haemodynamics are related to easily obtainable clinical parameters. LV but not RV haemodynamics are independent predictors of mortality, mostly in patients with severe disease.

COVID-19, a tale of two peaks: patients' characteristics, treatments, and clinical outcomes.

Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) continues to challenge healthcare systems globally as many countries are currently experiencing an increase in the morbidity and mortality. Compare baseline characteristics, clinical presentation, treatments, and clinical outcomes of patients admitted during the second peak to those admitted during the first peak. Retrospective analysis of 258 COVID-19 patients consecutively admitted to the Tel Aviv Medical Center, of which, 131 during the first peak (March 21-May 30, 2020) and 127 during the second peak (May 31-July 16, 2020). First and second peak patients did not differ in baseline characteristics and clinical presentation at admission. Treatment with dexamethasone, full-dose anticoagulation, tocilizumab, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma transfusion were significantly more frequent during the second peak, as well as regimens combining 3-4 COVID-19-directed drugs. Compared to the first peak, 30-day mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation rates as well as adjusted risk were significantly lower during the second peak (10.2%, vs 19.8% vs p = 0.028, adjusted HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79, p = 0.009 and 8.8% vs 19.3%, p = 0.002, adjusted HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.64, p = 0.002; respectively). Rates of 30-day mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation, as well as adjusted risks, were lower in the second peak of the COVID-19 pandemic among hospitalized patients. The change in treatment strategy and the experienced gained during the first peak may have contributed to the improved outcomes.

The Predictive Role of Combined Cardiac and Lung Ultrasound in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate sonographic features that may aid in risk stratification and to propose a focused cardiac and lung ultrasound (LUS) algorithm in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: Two hundred consecutive hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 underwent comprehensive clinical and echocardiographic examination, as well as LUS, irrespective of clinical indication, within 24 hours of admission as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Assessment included calculation of the modified early warning score (MEWS), left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, hemodynamic and right ventricular assessment, and a calculated LUS score. Outcome analysis was performed to identify echocardiographic and LUS predictors of mortality or the composite event of mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation and to assess their adjunctive value on top of clinical parameters and MEWS. RESULTS: A simplified echocardiographic risk score composed of left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% combined with tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion < 18 mm was associated with mortality (P = .0002) and with the composite event (P = .0001). Stepwise analyses evaluating echocardiographic and LUS parameters on top of existing clinical risk scores showed that addition of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and stroke volume index improved prediction of mortality when added to clinical variables but not when added to MEWS. Once echocardiography was added, and patients were recategorized as high risk only if having both high-risk MEWS and high-risk cardiac features, specificity increased from 63% to 87%, positive predictive value from 28% to 48%, and accuracy from 66% to 85%. Although LUS was not associated with incremental risk prediction for mortality above clinical and echocardiographic criteria, it improved prediction of need for invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a very limited echocardiographic examination is sufficient for outcome prediction. The addition of echocardiography in patients with high-risk MEWS decreases the rate of falsely identifying patients as high risk to die and may improve resource allocation in case of high patient load.