Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiology fellow echocardiography education at a large academic center.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19 pandemic state restrictions, our institution deferred elective procedures from 3/15/2020 to 6/13/2020, and removed cardiology fellows from the echocardiography rotation to staff clinical services. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fellow education and echocardiography volumes. METHODS: Our institutional database was used to examine volumes of transthoracic (TTE), stress (SE), and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) from 7/1/2018 to 10/10/2020. Study volumes were compared in three intervals: pre-pandemic (7/1/2018- 3/14/2020), pandemic (3/15/2020-6/13/2020), and pandemic recovery (6/14/2020-10/10/2020). We examined weekly number of TTEs performed or interpreted by cardiology fellows during the study period, and compared these to the two previous academic years. RESULTS: Weekly TTE volume declined by 54% during the pandemic, and increased by 99% during pandemic recovery, (p < 0.05). SE and TEE revealed similar trends. A strong correlation between weekly TTE volume and inpatient admissions was observed during the study period (rs=0.67, p < 0.05). Weekly fellow TTE scans declined by 78% during the pandemic, with a 380% increase during pandemic recovery (p < 0.05). Weekly fellow TTE interpretations declined by 56% during the pandemic, with a 76% increase during pandemic recovery (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: COVID restrictions between 3/15/2020- 6/14/2020 coincided with a marked decline in TTE, SE, and TEE volumes, with an increase similar to near pre-pandemic volumes during the pandemic recovery period. A similar decline with the onset of COVID restrictions, and increase to pre-restriction volumes thereafter was observed with fellow scans and interpretations, but total academic year fellow training volumes remained depressed. With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and rise of multiple variants, training programs may need to adjust fellows' clinical responsibilities so as to support achievement of echocardiography training certification.

Automated analysis of limited echocardiograms: Feasibility and relationship to outcomes in COVID-19.

Background: As automated echocardiographic analysis is increasingly utilized, continued evaluation within hospital settings is important to further understand its potential value. The importance of cardiac involvement in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 provides an opportunity to evaluate the feasibility and clinical relevance of automated analysis applied to limited echocardiograms. Methods: In this multisite US cohort, the feasibility of automated AI analysis was evaluated on 558 limited echocardiograms in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Reliability of automated assessment of left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF), and LV longitudinal strain (LS) was assessed against clinically obtained measures and echocardiographic findings. Automated measures were evaluated against patient outcomes using ROC analysis, survival modeling, and logistic regression for the outcomes of 30-day mortality and in-hospital sequelae. Results: Feasibility of automated analysis for both LVEF and LS was 87.5% (488/558 patients). AI analysis was performed with biplane method in 300 (61.5%) and single plane apical 4- or 2-chamber analysis in 136 (27.9%) and 52 (10.7%) studies, respectively. Clinical LVEF was assessed using visual estimation in 192 (39.3%), biplane in 163 (33.4%), and single plane or linear methods in 104 (21.2%) of the 488 studies; 29 (5.9%) studies did not have clinically reported LVEF. LV LS was clinically reported in 80 (16.4%). Consistency between automated and clinical values demonstrated Pearson's R, root mean square error (RMSE) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.61, 11.3% and 0.72, respectively, for LVEF; 0.73, 3.9% and 0.74, respectively for LS; 0.76, 24.4ml and 0.87, respectively, for end-diastolic volume; and 0.82, 12.8 ml, and 0.91, respectively, for end-systolic volume. Abnormal automated measures of LVEF and LS were associated with LV wall motion abnormalities, left atrial enlargement, and right ventricular dysfunction. Automated analysis was associated with outcomes, including survival. Conclusion: Automated analysis was highly feasible on limited echocardiograms using abbreviated protocols, consistent with equivalent clinically obtained metrics, and associated with echocardiographic abnormalities and patient outcomes.

Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient During COVID-19: An Expert Consensus Document From the ACC Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients-individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease-are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.