Search

Background: Glucocorticoid therapy has emerged as an effective therapeutic option in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed to focus on the impact of relevant clinical and laboratory factors on the protective effect of glucocorticoids on mortality. Methods: A sub-analysis was performed of the multicenter Cardio-COVID-Italy registry, enrolling consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 13 Italian cardiology units between 01 March 2020 and 09 April 2020. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 706 COVID-19 patients were included (349 treated with glucocorticoids, 357 not treated with glucocorticoids). After adjustment for relevant covariates, use of glucocorticoids was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26–0.72; p = 0.001). A significant interaction was observed between the protective effect of glucocorticoids on mortality and PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission (p = 0.042), oxygen saturation on admission (p = 0.017), and peak CRP (0.023). Such protective effects of glucocorticoids were mainly observed in patients with lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio (100 mg/L). Conclusions: The protective effects of glucocorticoids on mortality in COVID-19 were more evident among patients with worse respiratory parameters and higher systemic inflammation.

Tricuspid regurgitation, either isolated or associated with left-valve disease, has a strong impact on outcome. Surgical treatment of tricuspid regurgitation has increased in recent years, but in-hospital mortality remains high probably due to the risk profile of the recipients. As a consequence, most of the patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, especially if isolated, remain untreated. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions are rapidly spreading as alternative options to open-heart procedures fulfilling this important unmet need. Although patient selection and timing of intervention are unclear, many devices have been developed in recent years for both repair and replacement of tricuspid valve. Repair tools can be targeted to leaflets or annulus. Replacement devices include heterotopic and orthotropic systems. The aim of this review is to report possible indications and summarize current data about the different devices available for transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions.

Aims To compare demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and outcomes of patients with and without concomitant cardiac disease, hospitalized for COVID-19 in Brescia, Lombardy, Italy. Methods and results The study population includes 99 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our hospital between 4 March and 25 March 2020. Fifty-three patients with a history of cardiac disease were compared with 46 without cardiac disease. Among cardiac patients, 40% had a history of heart failure, 36% had atrial fibrillation, and 30% had coronary artery disease. Mean age was 67 ± 12 years, and 80 (81%) patients were males. No differences were found between cardiac and non-cardiac patients except for higher values of serum creatinine, N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide, and high sensitivity troponin T in cardiac patients. During hospitalization, 26% patients died, 15% developed thrombo-embolic events, 19% had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 6% had septic shock. Mortality was higher in patients with cardiac disease compared with the others (36% vs. 15%, log-rank P = 0.019; relative risk 2.35; 95% confidence interval 1.08–5.09). The rate of thrombo-embolic events and septic shock during the hospitalization was also higher in cardiac patients (23% vs. 6% and 11% vs. 0%, respectively). Conclusions Hospitalized patients with concomitant cardiac disease and COVID-19 have an extremely poor prognosis compared with subjects without a history of cardiac disease, with higher mortality, thrombo-embolic events, and septic shock rates.

Background: Acute myocarditis (AM) is thought to be a rare cardiovascular complication of COVID-19, although minimal data are available beyond case reports. We aim to report the prevalence, baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes for patients with COVID-19–associated AM on the basis of a retrospective cohort from 23 hospitals in the United States and Europe. Methods: A total of 112 patients with suspected AM from 56 963 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were evaluated between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization for COVID-19 and a diagnosis of AM on the basis of endomyocardial biopsy or increased troponin level plus typical signs of AM on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We identified 97 patients with possible AM, and among them, 54 patients with definite/probable AM supported by endomyocardial biopsy in 17 (31.5%) patients or magnetic resonance imaging in 50 (92.6%). We analyzed patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes among all COVID-19–associated AM. Results: AM prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was 2.4 per 1000 hospitalizations considering definite/probable and 4.1 per 1000 considering also possible AM. The median age of definite/probable cases was 38 years, and 38.9% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively). Thirty-one cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. Twenty-one (38.9%) had a fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support. The composite of in-hospital mortality or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 20.4%. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%, 15.1% in patients with associated pneumonia versus 0% in patients without pneumonia ( P =0.044). During hospitalization, left ventricular ejection fraction, assessed by echocardiography, improved from a median of 40% on admission to 55% at discharge (n=47; P Conclusions: AM occurrence is estimated between 2.4 and 4.1 out of 1000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The majority of AM occurs in the absence of pneumonia and is often complicated by hemodynamic instability. AM is a rare complication in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with an outcome that differs on the basis of the presence of concomitant pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: The role of sex compared to comorbidities and other prognostic variables in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unclear. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study on patients with COVID-19 infection, referred to 13 cardiology units. The primary objective was to assess the difference in risk of death between the sexes. The secondary objective was to explore sex-based heterogeneity in the association between demographic, clinical and laboratory variables, and patients' risk of death. RESULTS: Seven hundred and one patients were included: 214 (30.5%) women and 487 (69.5%) men. During a median follow-up of 15 days, deaths occurred in 39 (18.2%) women and 126 (25.9%) men. In a multivariable Cox regression model, men had a nonsignificantly higher risk of death vs. women (P = 0.07).The risk of death was more than double in men with a low lymphocytes count as compared with men with a high lymphocytes count [overall survival hazard ratio (OS-HR) 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-3.81]. In contrast, lymphocytes count was not related to death in women (P = 0.03).Platelets count was associated with better outcome in men (OS-HR for increase of 50 × 103 units: 0.88 95% CI 0.78-1.00) but not in women. The strength of association between higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio and lower risk of death was larger in women (OS-HR for increase of 50 mmHg/%: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.89) vs. men (OS-HR: 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' sex is a relevant variable that should be taken into account when evaluating risk of death from COVID-19. There is a sex-based heterogeneity in the association between baseline variables and patients' risk of death.

Aims Several risk factors have been identified to predict worse outcomes in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prediction models are needed to optimize clinical management and to early stratify patients at a higher mortality risk. Machine learning (ML) algorithms represent a novel approach to identify a prediction model with a good discriminatory capacity to be easily used in clinical practice. Methods and results The Cardio-COVID is a multicentre observational study that involved a cohort of consecutive adult Caucasian patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 [by real time reverse transcriptase—polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] who were hospitalized in 13 Italian cardiology units from 1 March to 9 April 2020. Patients were followed-up after the COVID-19 diagnosis and all causes in-hospital mortality or discharge were ascertained until 23 April 2020. Variables with more than 20% of missing values were excluded. The Lasso procedure was used with a λ = 0.07 for reducing the covariates number. Mortality was estimated by means of a Random Forest (RF). The dataset was randomly divided in two subsamples with the same percentage of death/alive people of the entire sample: training set contained 80% of the data and test set the remaining 20%. The training set was used in the calibration procedure where a RF models in-hospital mortality with the covariates selected by Lasso. Its accuracy was measured by means of the ROC curve, obtaining AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and related 95% confidence interval (CI) computed with 10 000 stratified bootstrap replicates. From the RF the relative Variable Importance Measure (relVIM) was extracted to understand which of the selected variables had the greatest impact on outcome, providing a ranking from the most (relVIM = 100) to the less important variable. The model obtained was compared with the Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) and with the logistic regression, where the predictions were cross validated. Finally, to understand if each model has the same performance in sample (training) and out of sample (test), the two AUCs were compared by means of the DeLong’s test. Among 701 patients enrolled (mean age 67.2 ± 13.2 years, 69.5% males), 165 (23.5%) died during a median hospitalization of 15 (IQR, 9–24) days. Variables selected by the Lasso were: age, Oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2, Creatinine Clearance and elevated Troponin. Compared with those who survived, deceased patients were older, had a lower blood oxygenation, a lower creatinine clearance levels and higher prevalence of elevated Troponin (all P Conclusions In a large COVID-19 population, we showed that a customizable ML-based score derived from clinical variables, is feasible and effective for the prediction of in-hospital mortality.

Aims Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) following acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality rates and has inconclusive recommendations in clinical guidelines. We aimed to report the international experience of patients with secondary MR following acute MI and compare the outcomes of those treated conservatively, surgically, and percutaneously. Methods and results Retrospective international registry of consecutive patients with at least moderate-to-severe MR following MI treated in 21 centres in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. The registry included patients treated conservatively and those having surgical mitral valve repair or replacement (SMVR) or percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) using edge-to-edge repair. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. A total of 471 patients were included (43% female, age 73 ± 11 years): 205 underwent interventions, of whom 106 were SMVR and 99 PMVR. Patients who underwent mitral valve intervention were in a worse clinical state (Killip class ≥3 in 60% vs. 43%, P < 0.01), but yet had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality compared with those treated conservatively [11% vs. 27%, P < 0.01 and 16% vs. 35%, P < 0.01; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18–0.46, P < 0.01]. Surgical mitral valve repair or replacement was performed earlier than PMVR [median of 12 days from MI date (interquartile range 5–19) vs. 19 days (10–40), P < 0.01]. The immediate procedural success did not differ between SMVR and PMVR (92% vs. 93%, P = 0.53). However, in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were significantly higher in SMVR than in PMVR (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.03 and 31% vs. 17%, P = 0.04; adjusted HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.55–9.07, P < 0.01). Conclusions Early intervention may mitigate the poor prognosis associated with conservative therapy in patients with post-MI MR. Percutaneous mitral valve repair can serve as an alternative for surgery in reducing MR for high-risk patients.

Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been described in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critically ill patients, but the evidence from more heterogeneous cohorts is limited. Methods Data were retrospectively obtained from consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to 13 Cardiology Units in Italy, from March 1st to April 9th, 2020, and followed until in-hospital death, discharge, or April 23rd, 2020. The association of baseline variables with computed tomography-confirmed PE was investigated by Cox hazards regression analysis. The relationship between d-dimer levels and PE incidence was evaluated using restricted cubic splines models. Results The study included 689 patients (67.3 ± 13.2 year-old, 69.4% males), of whom 43.6% were non-invasively ventilated and 15.8% invasively. 52 (7.5%) had PE over 15 (9–24) days of follow-up. Compared with those without PE, these subjects had younger age, higher BMI, less often heart failure and chronic kidney disease, more severe cardio-pulmonary involvement, and higher admission d-dimer [4344 (1099–15,118) vs. 818.5 (417–1460) ng/mL, p p p = 0.06). In multivariate regression, only d-dimer was associated with PE (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13–2.62; p = 0.01). The relation between d-dimer concentrations and PE incidence was linear, without inflection point. Only two subjects had a baseline d-dimer Conclusions PE occurs in a sizable proportion of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The implications of bleeding events and the role of d-dimer in this population need to be clarified. Graphic abstract

Aims To assess the clinical relevance of a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and results We enrolled 696 consecutive patients (mean age 67.4 ± 13.2 years, 69.7% males) admitted for COVID-19 in 13 Italian cardiology centres between 1 March and 9 April 2020. One hundred and six patients (15%) had a history of AF and the median hospitalization length was 14 days (interquartile range 9–24). Patients with a history of AF were older and with a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors. Compared to patients without AF, they showed a higher rate of in-hospital death (38.7% vs. 20.8%; P 0.05 for both) and was not related to stroke or bleeding events. Conclusion Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a history of AF contributes to worse clinical course with a higher mortality and in-hospital events including new-onset AF, acute HF, and multiorgan failure. The mortality risk remains significant after adjustment for variables associated with COVID-19 severity and comorbidities.

Aims: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR), impaired right ventricular function (RVF) may negatively influence the prognosis. Percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) can promote the recovery of RVF. We sought to characterize the response of the right ventricle to pMVR in HFrEF with SMR and to assess the association between improved RVF after pMVR and outcomes. Methods and results: Overall, 221 patients with HFrEF and SMR ≥3+ successfully treated with pMVR in four tertiary care centres for heart failure were included. Improved RVF was defined as Δ right ventricular fractional area change (ΔRVFAC) ≥5% at early follow-up (median time 4 months). The primary endpoint was a composite of death/heart transplantation (D/HT). Mean age was 69 ± 11 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31 ± 8% and mean RVFAC was 34 ± 9%. ΔRVFAC ≥5% occurred in 88 patients (40%) and was independent of the measures of left ventricular reverse remodelling. During a median follow-up of 29 months (interquartile range 12–46), 81 patients (37%) reached the primary endpoint. After adjustment for other significant covariates, ΔRVFAC ≥5% was significantly associated with lower risk of D/HT (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.29–0.94, P = 0.030). In the secondary outcome analysis exploring the risk of heart failure hospitalizations, ΔRVFAC ≥5% confirmed the prognostic association with the endpoint. Conclusions: In patients with HFrEF and SMR, about 40% of patients improved RVF after pMVR. RVF improvement was associated with better long-term survival free from HT and lower risk of heart failure hospitalization.

Objectives To assess outcomes in patients with acute mitral regurgitation (MR) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who received percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) with the MitraClip device and to compare outcomes of patients who developed cardiogenic shock (CS) to those who did not (non-CS). Background Acute MR after AMI may lead to CS and is associated with high mortality. Methods This registry analyzed patients with MR after AMI who were treated with MitraClip at 18 centers within eight countries between January 2016 and February 2020. Patients were stratified into CS and non-CS groups. Primary outcomes were mortality and rehospitalization due to heart failure. Secondary outcomes were acute procedural success, functional improvement, and MR reduction. Multivariable Cox regression analysis evaluated association of CS with clinical outcomes. Results Among 93 patients analyzed (age 70.3 +/- 10.2 years), 50 patients (53.8%) experienced CS before PMVR. Mortality at 30 days (10% CS vs. 2.3% non-CS; p = .212) did not differ between groups. After median follow-up of 7 months (IQR 2.5-17 months), the combined event mortality/re-hospitalization was similar (28% CS vs. 25.6% non-CS; p = .793). Likewise, immediate procedural success (90% CS vs. 93% non-CS; p = .793) and need for reintervention (CS 6% vs. non-CS 2.3%, p = .621) or re-admission due to HF (CS 13% vs. NCS 23%, p = .253) at 3 months did not differ. CS was not independently associated with the combined end-point (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI, 0.3-4.6; p = .889). Conclusions Patients found to have significant MR during their index hospitalization for AMI had similar clinical outcomes with PMVR whether they presented in or out of cardiogenic shock, provided initial hemodynamic stabilization was first achieved before PMVR.

Aims Treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin II receptors blockers (ARBs) and beta‐blockers is frequently suboptimal at discharge in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). We investigated the prognostic significance of medical treatment at discharge and its changes during hospitalization. Methods and results In a retrospective analysis, we included 623 patients hospitalized for AHF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (

Patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) after myocardial infarction (MI) have an increased risk of mortality. Transcatheter mitral valve repair may therefore be a suitable therapy. However, data on clinical outcomes of patients in an acute setting are scarce, especially those with reduced left ventricle (LV) dysfunction. We conducted a multinational, collaborative data analysis from 21 centers for patients who were, within 90 days of acute MI, treated with MitraClip due to severe MR. The cohort was divided according to median left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF)—35%. Included in the study were 105 patients. The mean age was 71 ± 10 years. Patients in the LVEF &lt, 35% group were younger but with comparable Euroscore II, multivessel coronary artery disease, prior MI and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Procedure time was comparable and acute success rate was high in both groups (94% vs. 90%, p = 0.728). MR grade was significantly reduced in both groups along with an immediate reduction in left atrial V-wave, pulmonary artery pressure and improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were not significantly different between the two groups (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.51 and 19% vs. 12%, p = 0.49) and neither was the 3-month re-hospitalization rate. In conclusion, MitraClip intervention in patients with acute severe functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) due to a recent MI in an acute setting is safe and feasible. Even patients with severe LV dysfunction may benefit from transcatheter mitral valve intervention and should not be excluded.

Aims: To assess the prognostic value of a history of heart failure (HF) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and results: We enrolled 692 consecutive patients admitted for COVID-19 in 13 Italian cardiology centres between 1 March and 9 April 2020. Mean age was 67.4± 13.2 years, 69.5% of patients were males, 90 (13.0%) had a history of HF, median hospitalization length was 14 days (interquartile range 9–24). In-hospital death occurred in 37 of 90 patients (41.1%) with HF history vs. 126 of those with no HF history (20.9%). The increased risk of death associated with HF history remained significant after adjustment for clinical variables related to COVID-19 and HF severity, including comorbidities, oxygen saturation, lymphocyte count and plasma troponin [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death: 2.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–4.02; P= 0.006 at multivariable Cox regression model including 404 patients]. Patients with a history of HF also had more in-hospital complications including. acute HF (33.3% vs. 5.1%, P< 0.001), acute renal failure (28.1% vs. 12.9%, P< 0.001), multiorgan failure (15.9% vs. 5.8%, P= 0.004) and sepsis (18.4% vs. 8.9%, P= 0.006). Other independent predictors of outcome were age, sex, oxygen saturation and oxygen partial pressure at arterial gas analysis/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2). In-hospital treatment with corticosteroids and heparin had beneficial effects (adjusted HR for death: 0.46; 95% CI 0.29–0.74; P= 0.001; n= 404 for corticosteroids, and adjusted HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.25–0.67; P< 0.001; n= 364 for heparin). Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a history of HF have an extremely poor outcome with higher mortality and in-hospital complications. HF history is an independent predictor of increased in-hospital mortality.