Search

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a useful tool for diagnosis and monitoring in patients with active COVID-19-infection. However, less is known about the changes in LUS findings after a hospitalization for COVID-19., Methods: In a prospective, longitudinal study in patients with COVID-19 enrolled from non-ICU hospital units, adult patients underwent 8-zone LUS and blood sampling both during the hospitalization and 2-3 months after discharge. LUS images were analyzed blinded to clinical variables and outcomes., Results: A total of 71 patients with interpretable LUS at baseline and follow up (mean age 64 years, 61% male, 24% with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)) were included. The follow-up LUS was performed a median of 72 days after the initial LUS performed during hospitalization. At baseline, 87% had pathologic LUS findings in ≥1 zone (e.g. ≥3 B-lines, confluent B-lines or subpleural or lobar consolidation), whereas 30% had pathologic findings at follow-up (p < 0.001). The total number of B-lines and LUS score decreased significantly from hospitalization to follow-up (median 17 vs. 4, p < 0.001 and 4 vs. 0, p < 0.001, respectively). On the follow-up LUS, 28% of all patients had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone, whereas in those with ARDS during the baseline hospitalization (n = 17), 47% had ≥3 B-lines in ≥1 zone., Conclusion: LUS findings improved significantly from hospitalization to follow-up 2-3 months after discharge in COVID-19 survivors. However, persistent B-lines were frequent at follow-up, especially among those who initially had ARDS. LUS seems to be a promising method to monitor COVID-19 lung changes over time., Gov Id: NCT04377035., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of global longitudinal strain (GLS) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients in relation to all-cause mortality., Background: Measurement of myocardial deformation by 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography, specifically GLS, may be superior to conventional echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction, in predicting all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients., Methods: Transthoracic echocardiographic examinations were retrieved for 1,065 HFrEF patients admitted to a heart failure clinic. The echocardiographic images were analyzed, and conventional and novel echocardiographic parameters were obtained., Results: Many of the conventional echocardiographic parameters proved to be predictors of mortality. However, GLS remained an independent predictor of mortality in the multivariable model after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, total cholesterol, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, ischemic cardiomyopathy, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus, and conventional echocardiographic parameters (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.27; p = 0.008, per 1% decrease). No other echocardiographic parameter remained an independent predictor after adjusting for these variables. Furthermore, GLS had the highest C-statistics of all the echocardiographic parameters and added incremental prognostic value with a significant increase in the net reclassification improvement (p = 0.009). Atrial fibrillation (AF) modified the relationship between GLS and mortality (p value for interaction = 0.036); HR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.97 to 1.19), p = 0.150 and HR: 1.22 (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.29), p < 0.001, per 1% decrease in GLS for patients with and without AF, respectively. Sex also modified the relationship between GLS and mortality (p value for interaction = 0.047); HR: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.16 to 1.30), p < 0.001 and HR: 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.20), p = 0.083, per 1% decrease in GLS for men and women, respectively., Conclusions: GLS is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients, especially in male patients without AF. Furthermore, GLS was a superior prognosticator compared with all other echocardiographic parameters., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)