Background Large number of patients around the world are recovering from COVID-19; many of them report persistence of symptoms. Objectives We sought to test pulmonary, cardiovascular and peripheral responses to exercise in patients recovering from COVID-19. Methods We prospectively evaluated patients who recovered from COVID-19 using a combined anatomic/functional assessment. All patients underwent clinical examination, laboratory tests, and a combined stress echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise test. We measured left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, stroke volume, heart rate, E/e' ratio, right ventricular function, VO 2 , lung volumes, Ventilatory efficiency, O 2 saturation and muscle O 2 extraction in all effort stages and compared them to historical controls. Results A total of 71 patients were assessed 90.6±26 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Only 23 (33%) were asymptomatic. The most common symptoms were fatigue (34%), muscle weakness/pain (27%) and dyspnea (22%). VO 2 was lower among post-COVID-19 patients compared to controls (p=0.03, group by time interaction p=0.007). Reduction in peak VO 2 was due to a combination of chronotropic incompetence (75% of post-COVID-19 patients vs. 8% of controls, p<0.0001) and insufficient increase in stroke volume during exercise (p=0.0007, group by time interaction p=0.03). Stroke volume limitation was mostly explained by diminished increase in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (p=0.1, group by time interaction p=0.03) and insufficient increase in ejection fraction (p=0.01, group by time interaction p=0.01). Post-COVID-19 patients had higher peripheral O 2 extraction (p=0.004) and did not have significantly different respiratory and gas exchange parameters compared to controls. Conclusions Patients recovering from COVID-19 have symptoms associated with objective reduction in peak VO 2 . The mechanism of this reduction is complex and mainly involves a combination of attenuated heart rate and stroke volume reserve.

Background and Objectives We aimed to evaluate sonographic features that may aid in risk stratification and propose a focused cardiac and lung ultrasound (LUS) algorithm in patients with COVID-19 Methods Two hundred consecutive hospitalized patients with COVID-19 underwent comprehensive clinical and echocardiographic examination, as well as LUS, irrespective of clinical indication, within 24 hours of admission as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Assessment included calculation of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function, hemodynamic and right ventricular (RV) assessment and a calculated LUS score. We performed outcome analysis to identify echocardiographic and LUS predictors of mortality or the composite event of mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and to assess their adjunctive value on top of clinical parameters and MEWS. Results A simplified echocardiographic risk score comprised of LV ejection fraction< 50% combined with TAPSE< 18 mm, was associated with mortality (p=0.0002) and with the composite event (p=0.0001). Stepwise analyses evaluating echocardiographic and LUS parameters on top of existing clinical risk scores showed that addition of TAPSE and SVI improved prediction of mortality when added to clinical variables but not when added to MEWS. Once echocardiography was added, and patients re-categorized as high risk only if having both high risk MEWS, and high-risk cardiac features, the specificity increased from 63% to 87%, positive predictive value from 28% to 48% and accuracy improved from 66% to 85%. Although LUS was not associated with incremental risk prediction for mortality above clinical and echocardiographic criteria, it improved prediction of need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a very limited echocardiographic exam is sufficient for outcome prediction. The addition of echocardiography in patients with high risk MEWS score decreases the rate of falsely identifying patients as high risk to die, and may improve resource allocation in case of high patient load.background

Aims We aim to assess changes in routine echocardiographic and longitudinal strain parameters in patients recovering from Coronavirus disease 2019 during hospitalization and at 3-month follow-up. Methods and results Routine comprehensive echocardiography and STE of both ventricles were performed during hospitalization for acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as part of a prospective pre-designed protocol and compared with echocardiography performed ∼3 months after recovery in 80 patients, using a similar protocol. Significantly improved right ventricle (RV) fractional area change, longer pulmonary acceleration time, lower right atrial pressure, and smaller RV end-diastolic and end-systolic area were observed at the recovery assessment (P &lt; 0.05 for all). RV global longitudinal strain improved at the follow-up evaluation (23.2 ± 5 vs. 21.7 ± 4, P = 0.03), mostly due to improvement in septal segments. Only eight (10%) patients recovering from COVID-19 infection had abnormal ejection fraction (EF) at follow-up. However, LV related routine (E, E/e′, stroke volume, LV size), or STE parameters did not change significantly from the assessment during hospitalization. A significant proportion [36 (45%)] of patients had some deterioration of longitudinal strain at follow-up, and 20 patients (25%) still had abnormal LV STE ∼3 months after COVID-19 acute infection. Conclusion In patients previously discharged from hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection, RV routine echocardiographic and RV STE parameters improve significantly concurrently with improved RV haemodynamics. In contrast, a quarter of patients still have LV systolic dysfunction based on STE cut-offs. Moreover, LV STE does not improve significantly, implying subclinical LV dysfunction may be part and parcel of recovering from COVID-19 infection.

Aims Cardiovascular involvement is common in COVID-19. We sought to describe the haemodynamic profiles of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and determine their association with mortality. Methods and results Consecutive hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection underwent clinical evaluation using the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and a full non-invasive echocardiographic haemodynamic evaluation, irrespective of clinical indication, as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Patients were stratified based on filling pressure and output into four groups. Multivariable Cox-Hazard analyses determined the association between haemodynamic parameters with mortality. Among 531 consecutive patients, 44% of patients had normal left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) haemodynamic status. In contrast to LV haemodynamic parameters, RV parameters worsened with higher MEWS stage. While RV parameters did not have incremental risk prediction value above MEWS, LV stroke volume index, E/e′ ratio, and LV stroke work index were all independent predictors of outcome, particularly in severe disease. Patients with LV or RV with high filling pressure and low output had the worse outcome, and patients with normal haemodynamics had the best (P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, almost half have normal left and right haemodynamics at presentation. RV but not LV haemodynamics are related to easily obtainable clinical parameters. LV but not RV haemodynamics are independent predictors of mortality, mostly in patients with severe disease.

No abstract

Background The scope of pericardial involvement in COVID‐19 infection is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence, associates, and clinical impact of pericardial involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with COVID‐19 underwent clinical and echocardiographic examination, irrespective of clinical indication, within 48 hours as part of a prospective predefined protocol. Protocol included clinical symptoms and signs suggestive of pericarditis, calculation of modified early warning score, ECG and echocardiographic assessment for pericardial effusion, left and right ventricular systolic and diastolic function, and hemodynamics. We identified predictors of mortality and assessed the adjunctive value of pericardial effusion on top of clinical and echocardiographic parameters. The study included 530 patients. Pericardial effusion was found in 75 (14%), but only 17 patients (3.2%) fulfilled the criteria for acute pericarditis. Pericardial effusion was independently associated with modified early warning score, brain natriuretic peptide, and right ventricular function. It was associated with excess mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44; P =0.0005) in nonadjusted analysis. In multivariate analysis adjusted for modified early warning score and echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, it was marginally associated with mortality (HR, 1.86; P =0.06) and improvement in the model fit ( P =0.07). Combined assessment for pericardial effusion with modified early warning score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion was an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 1.86; P =0.02) and improved model fit ( P =0.02). Conclusions In hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, pericardial effusion is prevalent, but rarely attributable to acute pericarditis. It is associated with myocardial dysfunction and mortality. A limited echocardiographic examination, including left ventricular ejection fraction, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and assessment for pericardial effusion, can contribute to outcome prediction.

Background Advanced heart failure (HF) patients usually poorly tolerate guideline‐directed HF medical therapy (GDMT) and suffer high rates of morbidity and mortality. The use of continuous inotropes in the outpatient settings is hampered by previous data showing excess morbidity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of repetitive, intermittent, short‐term intravenous milrinone therapy in advanced HF patients with an intention to introduce and up‐titrate GDMT and improve functional class. Hypothesis Repetitive, intermittent milrinone therapy may assist with the stabilization of advanced HF patients. Methods Advanced HF patients treated with beta‐blockers and implanted with defibrillators were initiated with repetitive, intermittent short‐term intravenous milrinone therapy at our HF outpatient unit. Patients were prospectively followed with defibrillator interrogation, functional class assessment, B‐natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, and echocardiography parameters. Results The cohort included 24 patients with a mean 330 ± 240 days of milrinone therapy exposure. Mean age was 73 ± 6 years with male predominance (96%). Following milrinone therapy, median BNP levels decreased significantly (882 [286−3768] to 631 [278−1378] pg/ml, p = .017) with a significant reduction in the number of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III and IV ( p = .012, 0.013) and an increase in number of patients on GDMT. Importantly, the number of total sustained ventricular tachycardia events and HF hospitalizations did not change. Conclusions In this small cohort of advanced HF, repetitive, intermittent, short‐term milrinone therapy was found to be safe and potentially efficacious.

No abstract