No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence, characteristics and prognostic value of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in hospitalised, non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsThis single-centre, observational, cross-sectional study included 211 patients with COVID-19 admitted to non-ICU departments who underwent a single transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Patients with poor acoustic window (n=11) were excluded. Clinical, imaging, laboratory and TTE findings were compared in patients with versus without PH (estimated systolic pulmonary artery pressure >35 mm Hg) and with versus without RVD (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion <17 mm or S wave <9.5 cm/s). The primary endpoint was in-hospital death or ICU admission.ResultsA total of 200 patients were included in the final analysis (median age 62 (IQR 52–74) years, 65.5% men). The prevalence of PH and RVD was 12.0% (24/200) and 14.5% (29/200), respectively. Patients with PH were older and had a higher burden of pre-existing cardiac comorbidities and signs of more severe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (radiological lung involvement, laboratory findings and oxygenation status) compared with those without PH. Conversely, patients with RVD had a higher burden of pre-existing cardiac comorbidities but no evidence of more severe SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with those without RVD. The presence of PH was associated with a higher rate of in-hospital death or ICU admission (41.7 vs 8.5%, p<0.001), while the presence of RVD was not (17.2 vs 11.7%, p=0.404).ConclusionsAmong hospitalised non-ICU patients with COVID-19, PH (and not RVD) was associated with signs of more severe COVID-19 and with worse in-hospital clinical outcome.Trial registration numberNCT04318366

Patients with ACS presenting with PR as culprit lesion by OCT have a worse prognosis compared with that of patients with IFC. This finding should be taken into account in risk stratification and management of patients with ACS.

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.