Aims The EURO-ENDO registry aimed to study the management and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Methods and results Prospective cohort of 3116 adult patients (2470 from Europe, 646 from non-ESC countries), admitted to 156 hospitals in 40 countries between January 2016 and March 2018 with a diagnosis of IE based on ESC 2015 diagnostic criteria. Clinical, biological, microbiological, and imaging [echocardiography, computed tomography (CT) scan, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT)] data were collected. Infective endocarditis was native (NVE) in 1764 (56.6%) patients, prosthetic (PVIE) in 939 (30.1%), and device-related (CDRIE) in 308 (9.9%). Infective endocarditis was community-acquired in 2046 (65.66%) patients. Microorganisms involved were staphylococci in 1085 (44.1%) patients, oral streptococci in 304 (12.3%), enterococci in 390 (15.8%), and Streptococcus gallolyticus in 162 (6.6%). 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was performed in 518 (16.6%) patients and presented with cardiac uptake (major criterion) in 222 (42.9%) patients, with a better sensitivity in PVIE (66.8%) than in NVE (28.0%) and CDRIE (16.3%). Embolic events occurred in 20.6% of patients, and were significantly associated with tricuspid or pulmonary IE, presence of a vegetation and Staphylococcus aureus IE. According to ESC guidelines, cardiac surgery was indicated in 2160 (69.3%) patients, but finally performed in only 1596 (73.9%) of them. In-hospital death occurred in 532 (17.1%) patients and was more frequent in PVIE. Independent predictors of mortality were Charlson index, creatinine > 2 mg/dL, congestive heart failure, vegetation length > 10 mm, cerebral complications, abscess, and failure to undertake surgery when indicated. Conclusion Infective endocarditis is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcome despite profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles.

The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted the daily clinical practice of cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons. Preparedness of health workers and health services is crucial to tackle the enormous challenge posed by SARS-CoV-2 in wards, operating theatres, intensive care units, and interventionist laboratories. This Clinical Review provides an overview of COVID-19 and focuses on relevant aspects on prevention and management for specialists within the cardiovascular field.

No abstract

No abstract

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, management and prognosis of infective endocarditis

The three human coronaviruses that emerged (E-CoVs) in the last two decades, i.e. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), pose a serious threat to global health. They share some characteristics, including the fact that although the most affected organ is the lung, human E-CoVs often cause a hyperinflammatory multiorgan disease. As in the case of many other viruses, coronaviruses cause cardiovascular disease. The cardiovascular system is predominantly affected in the case of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as their primary receptor. Yet, available evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 is the one with higher avidity for the cardiovascular system and greater capacity to cause cardiac injury and thromboembolic events, along with a plethora of cardiovascular manifestations. This chapter provides a clinically oriented summary of the most relevant features of viral infections in relation to the cardiovascular system and the virology and pathophysiological characteristics of E-CoVs, as well as the risk factors, associated clinical manifestations, and current evidence for the management of cardiovascular complications caused by COVID-19.