Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.

SARS-CoV-2 may cause severe respiratory failure due to massive alveolar damage. Currently, no adequate curative therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease exists. By considering overall impact of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, an increased need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support becomes evident. We report on our preliminary institutional experience with COVID-19 patients receiving venovenous ECMO support. ASAIO Journal XXX; XX:00-00.

Along with the worldwide increase in continuous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) strategy adoption, more and more patients with demanding anatomical and clinical features are currently referred to heart failure (HF) departments for treatment. Thus surgeons have to deal, technically, with re-entry due to previous cardiac surgery procedures, porcelain aorta, peripheral vascular arterial disease, concomitant valvular or septal disease, biventricular failure. New surgical techniques and surgical tools have been developed to offer acceptable postoperative outcomes to all mechanical circulatory support recipients. Several less invasive and/or thoracotomic approaches for surgery combined with various LVAD inflow and outflow graft alternative anastomotic sites for system placement have been reported and described to solve complex clinical scenarios. Surgical techniques have been upgraded with further technical tips to preserve the native anatomy in case of re-entry for heart transplantation, myocardial recovery or device explant. The current continuous-flow miniaturized and intrapericardial devices provide versatility and technical advantages.However, the surgical planning requires a careful multidisciplinary evaluation which must be driven by a dedicated and well-trained Heart Failure team. Biventricular assist device (BVAD) implantation by adoption of the newer radial pumps might be a challenge. However, the results are encouraging thus remaining a valid option. This paper reviews and summarizes LVAD preoperative assessment and current surgical techniques for implantation.

Background: We investigated the clinical outcomes after cardiac valvular surgery procedures concomitant (CCPs) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation compared to propensity score (PS) matched controls using the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) data. Methods: Between 2006 and 2018, 2760 continuous-flow LVAD patients were identified. Of these, 533 underwent a CCP during the LVAD implant.Results: Cardiopulmonary bypass time (p < 0.001) and time for implant (p < 0.001) were both significantly longer in the LVAD+CCP group.Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups from the unmatched population (15.7% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.073). Similarly, short-to-mid-term survival was similar in both groups, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 67.9%, 48.2%, and 27.7% versus 66.4%, 46.1%, and 26%, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.25). The results were similar in the PS-matched population. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups (18.9% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.074). The short-tomid-term Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was similar for both groups, with 1year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 63.4%, 49.2%, and 24.7% versus 66.5%, 46%, and 25.1%, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.81).In the unmatched population, LVAD+CCP patients had longer intensive care unit (ICU) stays (p < 0.0001), longer mechanical ventilation time (p = 0.001), a higher rate of temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support (p = 0.033), and a higher rate of renal replacement therapy (n = 35, 6.6% vs. n = 89, 4.0%, p = 0.014). In the PS-matched population, the LVAD+CCP patients had longer ICU stays (p = 0.019) and longer mechanical ventilation time (p = 0.002). Conclusions:The effect of additive valvular procedures (CCPs) does not seem to affect short-term survival, significantly, based on our registry data analysis.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a rare disease with a very complex pathophysiology differing from other causes of pulmonary hypertension (PH). It is an infrequent consequence of acute pulmonary embolism that is frequently misdiagnosed. Pathogenesis has been related to coagulation abnormalities, infection or inflammation, although these disturbances can be absent in many cases. The hallmarks of CTEPH are thrombotic occlusion of pulmonary vessels, variable degree of ventricular dysfunction and secondary microvascular arteriopathy. The definition of CTEPH also includes an increase in mean pulmonary arterial pressure of more than 25 mmHg with a normal pulmonary capillary wedge of less than 15 mmHg. It is classified as World Health Organization group 4 PH, and is the only type that can be surgically cured by pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). This operation needs to be carried out by a team with strong expertise, from the diagnostic and decisional pathway to the operation itself. However, because the disease has a very heterogeneous phenotype in terms of anatomy, degree of PH and the lack of a standard patient profile, not all cases of CTEPH can be treated by PEA. As a result, PH-directed medical therapy traditionally used for the other types of PH has been proposed and is utilized in CTEPH patients. Since 2015, we have been witnessing the rebirth of balloon pulmonary angioplasty, a technique first performed in 2001 but has since fallen out fashion due to major complications. The refinement of such techniques has allowed its safe utilization as a salvage therapy in inoperable patients. In the present keynote lecture, we will describe these therapeutic approaches and results.