INTRODUCTION: Cardiac involvement seems to impact prognosis of COVID-19, being more frequent in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, evaluated by bedside echocardiography (echo), in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients admitted in 2 reference hospitals in Brazil from Jul to Sept/2020 with confirmed COVID-19 and moderate/severe presentations underwent clinical and laboratory evaluation, and focused bedside echo (GE Vivid-IQ), at the earliest convenience, with remote interpretation. The association between demographics, clinical comorbidities and echo variables with all-cause hospital mortality was assessed, and factors significant at p<0.10 were put into multivariable models. RESULTS: Total 163 patients were enrolled, 59% were men, mean age 64±16 years, and 107 (66%) were admitted to intensive care. Comorbidities were present in 144 (88%) patients: hypertension 115 (71%), diabetes 61 (37%) and heart failure 22 (14%). In-hospital mortality was 34% (N=56). In univariate analysis, echo variables significantly associated with death were: LV ejection fraction (LVEF, OR=0.94), RV fractional area change (OR=0.96), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE, OR=0.83) and RV dysfunction (OR=5.3). In multivariate analysis, after adjustment for clinical and demographic variables, independent predictors of mortality were age≥63 years (OR=5.53, 95%CI 1.52-20.17), LVEF<64% (OR=7.37, 95%CI 2.10-25.94) and TAPSE<18.5 mm (OR=9.43, 95% CI 2.57-35.03), and the final model had good discrimination, with C-statistic=0.83 (95%CI 0.75-0.91). CONCLUSION: Markers of RV and LV dysfunction assessed by bedside echo are independent predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, after adjustment for clinical variables.

Purpose: To evaluate the reasons for disagreement between screening echocardiography (echo), acquired by non-experts, and standard echo in the Brazilian primary care (PC).Methods: Over 20 months, 22 PC workers were trained on simpli ed handheld (GE VSCAN) echo protocols. Screening groups, consisting of patients aged 17-20, 35-40 and 60-65 years, and patients referred for clinical indications underwent focused echo. Studies were remotely interpreted in US and Brazil, and those diagnosed with major or severe HD were referred for standard echo performed by an expert. Major HD was de ned as moderate to severe valve disease, ventricular dysfunction/hypertrophy, pericardial effusion or wall-motion abnormalities. A random sample of exams was selected for evaluation of variables accounting for disagreement.Results: A sample of 768 patients was analyzed, 651 (85%) in the referred group. Quality issues were reported in 5.8%, and the random Kappa for major HD between screening and standard echo was 0.51. The most frequent reasons for disagreement were: overestimation of mitral regurgitation (MR) (17.9%, N=138), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (15.7%, N=121), aortic regurgitation (AR) (15.2%, N=117), LV hypertrophy (13.5%, N=104) and tricuspid regurgitation (12.7%, N=98). Misdiagnosis of mitral and aortic morphological abnormalities was observed in 12.4% and 3.0%, and underestimation of AR and MR occurred in 4.6% and 11.1%. Among 257 patients with suspected mild/moderate MR, 129 were reclassi ed to normal.Conclusion: Although screening echo with task-shifting in PC is a promising tool in low-income areas, estimation of valve regurgitation and LV function and size account for considerable disagreement with standard exams.

Background The natural history of latent rheumatic heart disease (RHD) detected by echocardiography remains unclear. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a simplified score based on the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria in predicting mid‐term RHD echocardiography outcomes in children from 4 different countries. Methods and Results Patient‐level baseline and follow‐up data of children with latent RHD from 4 countries (Australia, n=62; Brazil, n=197; Malawi, n=40; New Zealand, n=94) were combined. A simplified echocardiographic scoring system previously developed from Brazilian and Ugandan cohorts, consisting of 5 point‐based variables with respective weights, was applied: mitral valveanterior leaflet thickening (weight=3), excessive leaflet
tip motion (3), regurgitation jet length ≥2 cm (6), aortic valve
focal thickening (4), and any regurgitation (5). Unfavorable outcome was defined as worsening diagnostic category, persistent definite RHD or development/worsening of valve regurgitation/stenosis. The score model was updated using methods for recalibration. 393 patients (314 borderline, 79 definite RHD) with median follow‐up of 36 (interquartile range, 25–48) months were included. Median age was 14 (interquartile range, 11–16) years and secondary prophylaxis was prescribed to 16%. The echocardiographic score model applied to this external population showed significant association with unfavorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04–1.16; P =0.001). Unfavorable outcome rates in low (≤5 points), intermediate (6–9), and high‐risk (≥10) children at 3‐year follow‐up were 14.3%, 20.8%, and 38.5% respectively ( P <0.001). The updated score model showed good performance in predicting unfavorable outcome. Conclusions The echocardiographic score model for predicting RHD outcome was updated and validated for different latent RHD populations. It has potential utility in the clinical and screening setting for risk stratification of latent RHD.

Purpose: To evaluate the reasons for disagreement between screening echocardiography (echo), acquired by non-experts, and standard echo in the Brazilian primary care (PC). Methods: Over 20 months, 22 PC workers were trained on simplified handheld (GE VSCAN) echo protocols. Screening groups, consisting of patients aged 17-20, 35-40 and 60-65 years, and patients referred for clinical indications underwent focused echo. Studies were remotely interpreted in US and Brazil, and those diagnosed with major or severe HD were referred for standard echo performed by an expert. Major HD was defined as moderate to severe valve disease, ventricular dysfunction/hypertrophy, pericardial effusion or wall-motion abnormalities. A random sample of exams was selected for evaluation of variables accounting for disagreement.Results: A sample of 768 patients was analyzed, 651 (85%) in the referred group. Quality issues were reported in 5.8%, and the random Kappa for major HD between screening and standard echo was 0.51. The most frequent reasons for disagreement were: overestimation of mitral regurgitation (MR) (17.9%, N=138), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (15.7%, N=121), aortic regurgitation (AR) (15.2%, N=117), LV hypertrophy (13.5%, N=104) and tricuspid regurgitation (12.7%, N=98). Misdiagnosis of mitral and aortic morphological abnormalities was observed in 12.4% and 3.0%, and underestimation of AR and MR occurred in 4.6% and 11.1%. Among 257 patients with suspected mild/moderate MR, 129 were reclassified to normal. Conclusion: Although screening echo with task-shifting in PC is a promising tool in low-income areas, estimation of valve regurgitation and LV function and size account for considerable disagreement with standard exams.

No abstract