BACKGROUNDThere is considerable variation in disease behavior among patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 . Genomewide association analysis may allow for the identification of potential genetic factors involved in the development of Covid-19. METHODSWe conducted a genomewide association study involving 1980 patients with Covid-19 and severe disease (defined as respiratory failure) at seven hospitals in the Italian and Spanish epicenters of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Europe. After quality control and the exclusion of population outliers, 835 patients and 1255 control participants from Italy and 775 patients and 950 control participants from Spain were included in the final analysis. In total, we analyzed 8,582,968 single-nucleotide polymorphisms and conducted a meta-analysis of the two case-control panels. RESULTSWe detected cross-replicating associations with rs11385942 at locus 3p21.31 and with rs657152 at locus 9q34.2, which were significant at the genomewide level (P<5×10 −8 ) in the meta-analysis of the two case-control panels (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.11; P = 1.15×10 −10 ; and odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.47; P = 4.95×10 −8 , respectively). At locus 3p21.31, the association signal spanned the genes SLC6A20, LZTFL1, CCR9, FYCO1, CXCR6 and XCR1. The association signal at locus 9q34.2 coincided with the ABO blood group locus; in this cohort, a blood-group-specific analysis showed a higher risk in blood group A than in other blood groups (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.75; P = 1.48×10 −4 ) and a protective effect in blood group O as compared with other blood groups (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79; P = 1.06×10 −5 ). CONCLUSIONSWe identified a 3p21.31 gene cluster as a genetic susceptibility locus in patients with Covid-19 with respiratory failure and confirmed a potential involvement of the ABO blood-group system. (Funded by Stein Erik Hagen and others.

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 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant reductions in transplantation, motivated in part by concerns of disproportionately more severe disease among solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, clinical features, outcomes, and predictors of mortality in SOT recipients are not well-described. Methods We performed a multi-center cohort study of SOT recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Data were collected using standardized intake and 28-day follow-up electronic case report forms. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for the primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, among hospitalized patients. Results Four hundred eighty-two SOT recipients from &gt;50 transplant centers were included: 318 (66%) kidney or kidney/pancreas, 73 (15.1%) liver, 57 (11.8%) heart, and 30 (6.2%) lung. Median age was 58 (IQR 46-57), median time post-transplant was 5 years (IQR 2-10), 61% were male, and 92% had ≥1 underlying comorbidity. Among those hospitalized (376 [78%]), 117 (31%) required mechanical ventilation, and 77 (20.5%) died by 28 days after diagnosis. Specific underlying comorbidities (age &gt;65 [aOR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7-5.5, p&lt;0.001], congestive heart failure [aOR 3.2, 95%CI 1.4-7.0, p=0.004], chronic lung disease [aOR 2.5, 95%CI 1.2-5.2, p=0.018], obesity [aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.4, p=0.039]) and presenting findings (lymphopenia [aOR 1.9, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p=0.033], abnormal chest imaging [aOR 2.9, 95%CI 1.1-7.5, p=0.027]) were independently associated with mortality. Multiple measures of immunosuppression intensity were not associated with mortality. Conclusions Mortality among SOT recipients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 20.5%. Age and underlying comorbidities rather than immunosuppression intensity-related measures were major drivers of mortality.

Disclaimer 2017: The EACTS Guidelines represent the views of the EACTS and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their dating. The EACTS is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between these Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the EACTS Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the EACTS Guidelines do not in any way whatsoever override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and, where appropriate and/or necessary, in consultation with that patient and the patient's care provider. Nor do EACTS Guidelines exempt health professionals from giving full and careful consideration to the relevant official, updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.