QT Interval Monitoring with Handheld Heart Rhythm ECG Device in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.

Effect of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and lopinavir/ritonavir on the QT corrected interval in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prolongs QTc corrected interval (QTc). The effect and safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in combination with these therapies have seldom been studied. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate changes in QTc in patients receiving double (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin) and triple therapy (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Lopinavir/Ritonavir) to treat COVID-19. Secondary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital all-cause mortality. METHODS: Patients under treatment with double (DT) and triple therapy (TT) for COVID-19 were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Serial in-hospital electrocardiograms were performed to measure QTc at baseline and during therapy. RESULTS: 168 patients (±66.2 years old) were included: 32.1% received DT and 67.9% received TT. The mean baseline QTc was 410.33 ms. Patients under DT and TT prolonged QTc interval respect baseline values (p < 0.001), without significant differences between both therapy groups (p = 0.748). Overall, 33 patients (19.6%) had a peak QTc and/or an increase QTc 60 ms from baseline, with a higher prevalence among those with hypokalemia (p = 0.003). All-cause mortality was similar between both strategy groups (p = 0.093) and high risk QTc prolongation was no related to clinical events in this series. CONCLUSIONS: DT and TT prolong the QTc in patients with COVID-19. Addition of Lopinavir/Ritonavir on top of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin did not increase QTc compared to DT.

Outcomes of Nonagenarians With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Although older adults are the fastest-growing age group among cardiovascular patients, nonagenarians with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are under-represented in clinical trials. The aims of this study are to analyze the clinical presentation and outcomes of nonagenarian patients presenting with STEMI and to compare in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes between those treated with optimal medical treatment alone and those receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). We included all consecutive nonagenarians presenting with STEMI admitted in 2 academic centers between 2006 and 2018. There were no exclusion criteria. All-cause mortality was assessed in-hospital and at 1-year follow-up. In total, 167 patients (mean age 91.9 ± 0.17 years; 60% females) were included. Emergent catheterization was performed in 60% of our patients, and pPCI was performed in 50% (n = 83). Overall mortality was 22% in-hospital and 41% at 1-year follow-up. The pPCI group had lower mortality than the medical treatment group: 12% versus 32% in-hospital (p <0.01) and 26% versus 45% at 1-year follow-up (p <0.01), respectively. Multivariable analysis identified 4 independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year: mechanical complications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 9.25, p <0.01), Killip class III/IV (adjusted OR 4.22, p <0.01), serum creatinine at admission (mg/dl; adjusted OR 1.8, p <0.01), and pPCI (adjusted OR 0.52; p <0.05). In conclusion, STEMI in nonagenarians is becoming increasingly common. pPCI may be the preferred strategy in this high-risk cohort when a high grade of disability is not present. Hemodynamic compromise, the presence of complications related to myocardial infarction, renal impairment, and early revascularization may be related to prognosis in these patients.