Objective Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several diagnostic prediction rules based on pretest probability and D-dimer have been validated in non-COVID patients, but it remains unclear if they can be safely applied in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the standard approach based on Wells and Geneva scores combined with a standard D-dimer cut-off of 500 ng/ml with three alternative strategies (age-adjusted, YEARS and PEGeD algorithms) in COVID-19 patients. Methods This retrospective study included all COVID-19 patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) due to PE suspicion. The diagnostic prediction rules for PE were compared between patients with and without PE. Results We included 300 patients and PE was confirmed in 15%. No differences were found regarding comorbidities, traditional risk factors for PE and signs and symptoms between patients with and without PE. Wells and Geneva scores showed no predictive value for PE occurrence, whether a standard or an age-adjusted cut-off was considered. YEARS and PEGeD algorithms were associated with increased specificity (19% CTPA reduction) but raising non-diagnosed PE. Despite elevated in all patients, those with PE had higher D-dimer levels. However, incrementing thresholds to select patients for CTPA was also associated with a substantial decrease in sensitivity. Conclusion None of the diagnostic prediction rules are reliable predictors of PE in COVID-19. Our data favour the use of a D-dimer threshold of 500 ng/ml, considering that higher thresholds increase specificity but limits this strategy as a screening test.

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has rapidly expanded to a global pandemic, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Even though predictors of infection remain unclear, age and preexisting cardiovascular conditions have been clearly identified as predictors of adverse outcomes and higher fatality rates. Since the virus infects host cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, a key player in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the interaction between the cardiovascular system and the progression of COVID-19 is nowadays a focus of huge interest. In this review, the authors analyze the available and very recent evidence on the risk factors and mechanisms of the most relevant cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, including acute cardiac injury, myocarditis, stress-cardiomyopathy, ischemic myocardial injury, cytokine release syndrome, thrombotic disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Finally, we discuss the cardiovascular impact of the therapies under investigation for COVID-19 treatment.

Vasovagal reflex is the most common cause of syncope. Pacemaker with rate drop response (RDR) or closed‐loop stimulation (CLS) anti‐syncope algorithms have been studied in recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS), with conflicting results. We aim to investigate the role of pacemaker therapy and anti‐syncope pacing mode in cardioinhibitory recurrent VVS. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and registered clinical trials were searched for single or double‐blind randomized controlled trials on pacing as a treatment for recurrent VVS. Five studies were eligible, overall enrolling 228 patients. After pooling data from all trials, pacemaker therapy showed a 63% reduction in syncope recurrence compared to control [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14‐0.98; I2 = 67%)]. Subgroup analyses suggested that the effect was greater in single‐blind studies (RR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01‐0.52, I2 = 0%). When comparing pacing algorithms, the results from RDR versus no pacing trials (n = 2) did not show a significant reduction in syncope recurrence (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25‐2.16, I2 60 = 75%). In contrast, the data from the CLS versus standard pacing trials (n = 3) evidenced a statistically meaningful reduction in syncopal burden (RR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07‐0.47, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether pacemaker therapy reduces syncopal burden in cardioinhibitory recurrent VVS. However, our results suggest effectiveness of CLS pacing mode.

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low risk of early complications may be considered for early discharge or home treatment. Last decades evidence has been growing about the safety of several clinical prediction rules for selecting those patients, such as simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Hestia Criteria. The aim of this review was to compare the safety of both strategies regarding 30-days mortality, venous thromboembolism recurrence and major bleeding. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 6th January 2022. We searched for studies that applied both Hestia Criteria and sPESI to the same population. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated for both stratification rules. Both Hestia and sPESI criteria of low risk were evaluated to set the number of patients that could be misclassified for each 1000 patients with PE. The estimates were reported with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: This systematic review included 3 studies. Only mortality data was able to be pooled. Regarding mortality, the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio was 0.923 (95%CI: 0.843-0.964), 0.338 (95%CI: 0.262-0.423) and 6.120 (95%CI: 2.905-12.890) for Hestia Criteria; and 0.972 (95%CI: 0.917-0.991), 0.269 (95%CI: 0.209-0.338) and 12.738 (95%CI: 3.979-40.774) for sPESI score. The negative predictive values were higher than 0.977. The risk of misclassification of high-risk patients in low risk was 5 (95%CI: 3-11) with Hestia and 2 (95%CI: 1-6) with sPESI, for each 1000 patients with PE in terms of mortality. Conclusion: The risk of misclassification of patients presenting with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the intent of early discharge or home treatment with both Hestia Criteria and sPESI score is low and these data support methods for this purpose.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Risk factors comprising the CHA2DS2VASc score are recognized as risk factors for venous thromboembolism and mortality in COVID-19 patients. A modified CHA2DS2VASc score (M-CHA2D2VASc), developed by changing gender criteria from female to male, has been proposed to predict in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic accuracy of M-CHA2D2VASc for adverse clinical outcomes and short-term mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to the Emergency Department.Material and Methods: Retrospective study of patients admitted to the ED who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography due to suspected pulmonary embolism or clinical worsening. Patients were stratified into three M-CHA2DS2-VASc risk-categories: low (0 - 1 points), intermediate (2 - 3 points) and high-risk (≥ 4 points).Results: We included 300 patients (median age 71 years, 59% male). The overall mortality was 27%. The M-CHA2DS2-VASc score was higher in non-survivors compared to survivors [4 (IQR:3 - 5) vs 2 (IQR: 1 - 4), respectively, p < 0.001). The M-CHA2DS2-VASc score was identified as an independent predictor of mortality in a multivariable logistic regression model (OR 1.406, p = 0.007). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the M-CHA2DS2-VASc score was associated with short-term mortality (log-rank test < 0.001), regardless of hospitalization (log-rank test p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). The survival proportion was 92%, 80% and 63% in the lower, intermediate, and higher risk-groups. As for the risk-categories, no difference was found in pulmonary embolism, Intensive Care Unit admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation.Discussion: This is the first study to validate M-CHA2DS2-VASc score as a predictor of short-term mortality in patients admitted to the Emergency Department.Conclusion: The M-CHA2DS2-VASC score might be useful for prompt risk-stratification in COVID-19 patients during admission to the Emergency Department.