Search

Background: Cardiology divisions reshaped their activities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to analyze the organization of echocardiographic laboratories and echocardiography practice during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and the expectations for the post-COVID era. Methods: We analyzed two different time periods: the month of November during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the identical month during 2019 (November 2019). Results: During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital activity was partially reduced in 42 (60%) and wholly interrupted in 3 (4%) echocardiographic laboratories, whereas outpatient echocardiographic activity was partially reduced in 41 (59%) and completely interrupted in 7 (10%) laboratories. We observed an important change in the organization of activities in the echocardiography laboratory which reduced the operator-risk and improved self-protection of operators by using appropriate personal protection equipment. Operators wore FFP2 in 58 centers (83%) during trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE), in 65 centers (93%) during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and 63 centers (90%) during stress echocardiography. The second wave caused a significant reduction in number of echocardiographic exams, compared to November 2019 (from 513 ± 539 to 341 ± 299 exams per center, −34%, p &lt, 0.001). On average, there was a significant increase in the outpatient waiting list for elective echocardiographic exams (from 32.0 ± 28.1 to 45.5 ± 44.9 days, +41%, p &lt, 0.001), with a reduction of in-hospital waiting list (2.9 ± 2.4 to 2.4 ± 2.0 days, −17%, p &lt, 0.001). We observed a large diffusion of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound (88%), with a significant increase of lung ultrasound usage in 30 centers (43%) during 2019, extended to all centers in 2020. Carbon dioxide production by examination is an indicator of the environmental impact of technology (100-fold less with echocardiography compared to other cardiac imaging techniques). It was ignored in 2019 by 100% of centers, and currently it is considered potentially crucial for decision-making in cardiac imaging by 65 centers (93%). Conclusions: In one year, major changes occurred in echocardiography practice and culture. The examination structure changed with extensive usage of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound and with lung ultrasound embedded by default in the TTE examination, as well as the COVID-19 testing.

International audience; Two methods are currently available for left atrial (LA) strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography, with two different reference timings for starting the analysis: QRS (QRS-LASr) and P wave (P-LASr). The aim of MASCOT HIT study was to define which of the two was more reproducible, more feasible, and less time consuming. In 26 expert centers, LA strain was analyzed by two different echocardiographers (young vs senior) in a blinded fashion. The study population included: healthy subjects, patients with arterial hypertension or aortic stenosis (LA pressure overload, group 2) and patients with mitral regurgitation or heart failure (LA volume–pressure overload, group 3). Difference between the inter-correlation coefficient (ICC) by the two echocardiographers using the two techniques, feasibility and analysis time of both methods were analyzed. A total of 938 subjects were included: 309 controls, 333 patients in group 2, and 296 patients in group 3. The ICC was comparable between QRS-LASr (0.93) and P-LASr (0.90). The young echocardiographers calculated QRS-LASr in 90% of cases, the expert ones in 95%. The feasibility of P-LASr was 85% by young echocardiographers and 88% by senior ones. QRS-LASr young median time was 110 s (interquartile range, IR, 78-149) vs senior 110 s (IR 78-155); for P-LASr, 120 s (IR 80-165) and 120 s (IR 90-161), respectively. LA strain was feasible in the majority of patients with similar reproducibility for both methods. QRS complex guaranteed a slightly higher feasibility and a lower time wasting compared to the use of P wave as the reference.

OBJECTIVES Recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR) is common after surgical and percutaneous (MitraClip) treatment of functional MR (FMR). However, the Everest II trial suggested that, in patients with secondary MR and initially successful MitraClip therapy, the results were sustained at 4 years and were comparable with surgery in terms of late efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess whether both those findings were confirmed by our own experience. METHODS We reviewed 143 patients who had an initial optimal result (residual MR ≤ 1+ at discharge) after MitraClip therapy (85 patients) or surgical edge-to-edge (EE) repair (58 patients) for severe secondary MR (mean ejection fraction 28 ± 8.5%). Patients with MR ≥ 2+ at hospital discharge were excluded. The two groups were comparable. Only age and logistic EuroSCORE were higher in the MitraClip group. RESULTS Follow-up was 100% complete (median 3.2 years; interquartile range 1.8;6.1). Freedom from cardiac death at 4 years (81 ± 5.2 vs 84 ± 4.6%, P = 0.5) was similar in the surgical and MitraClip group. The initial optimal MitraClip results did not remain stable. At 1 year, 32.5% of the patients had developed MR ≥ 2+ (P = 0.0001 compared with discharge). Afterwards, patients with an echocardiographic follow-up at 2 years (60 patients), 3 years (40 patients) and 4 years (21 patients) showed a significant increase in the severity of MR compared with the corresponding 1 year grade (all P < 0.01). Freedom from MR ≥ 3+ at 4 years was 75 ± 7.6% in the MitraClip group and 94 ± 3.3% in the surgical one (P = 0.04). Freedom from MR ≥ 2+ at 4 years was 37 ± 7.2 vs 82 ± 5.2%, respectively (P = 0.0001). Cox regression analysis identified the use of MitraClip as a predictor of recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ [hazard ratio (HR) 5.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-10.8, P = 0.0001] as well as of MR ≥ 3 (HR 3.5, 95% CI 0.9-13.1, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In patients with FMR and optimal mitral competence after MitraClip implantation, the recurrence of significant MR at 4 years is not uncommon. This study does not confirm previous observations reported in the Everest II randomized controlled trial indicating that, if the MitraClip therapy was initially successful, the results were sustained at 4 years. When compared with the surgical EE combined with annuloplasty, MitraClip therapy provides lower efficacy at 4 years.

OBJECTIVES To compare the surgical and percutaneous edge-to-edge (EE) repair in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS We reviewed the prospectively collected data of the first 120 consecutive patients (age: 65 ± 9.8 years, EF: 28 ± 8.2%) treated with surgical (65 patients) or percutaneous (55 patients) EE repair for severe secondary MR in our institution. Age (P = 0.005) and logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the MitraClip group. LVEF (P = 0.37), end-diastolic (P = 0.83) and end-systolic (P = 0.68) volumes and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (P = 0.58) were similar. The follow-up was 100% complete [median: 4 years; interquartile range (IQR): 2.2-7.2]. RESULTS The length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR: 8-13) for surgery and 5 days (IQR: 3.9-7.8) for MitraClip (P < 0.0001). Hospital mortality (3 vs 0%, P = 0.49) and freedom from cardiac death at 4 years (80.8 ± 4.9% vs 79.1 ± 5.9%, P = 0.9) were not significantly different in the surgical and MitraClip group, respectively. Residual MR ≥ 2+ at hospital discharge was 7.6% for surgery and 29% for MitraClip (P = 0.002). At 4 years, freedom from MR ≥ 2+ (74.9 ± 5.6% vs 51.4 ± 7.4%, P = 0.01) and freedom from MR ≥ 3+ (92.8 ± 3.4% vs 68.1 ± 7%, P = 0.002) were both significantly higher in the surgical group. Multivariate analysis identified the use of MitraClip as an independent predictor of recurrence of MR ≥ 2+ [Hazard ratio (HR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-3.9, P = 0.02] as well as of MR ≥ 3 (HR: 6.1, 95% CI: 1.5-24.3, P = 0.01). In the surgical group, no predictors of cardiac mortality were identified. In the MitraClip group, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (HR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1-1.2, P = 0.005) and SPAP (HR: 1, 95% CI: 1-1.1, P = 0.005) were independent predictors of cardiac death at the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS MitraClip therapy is a safe therapeutic option in selected high-risk patients with secondary MR and relevant comorbidities. The surgical EE provides higher efficacy both postoperatively and at the mid-term follow-up.