BackgroundCOVID-19 may predispose to venous thromboembolism. We determined factors independently associated with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalised severe COVID-19 patients.MethodsAmong all (N=349) patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in a university hospital in a French region with a high rate of COVID-19, we analysed patients who underwent CTPA for clinical signs of severe disease (SpO2≤93% or breathing rate≥30/min); or rapid clinical worsening. Multivariable analysis was performed using Firth penalised maximum likelihood estimates.ResultsIn total, 162 patients (46.4%) underwent CTPA (mean age 65.6±13.0; 67.3% males (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.5–75.5%)). PE was diagnosed in 44 patients (27.2%). Most PE were segmental and the rate of PE-related right ventricular dysfunction was 15.9%. By multivariable analysis, the only two significant predictors of CTPA-confirmed PE were D-dimer level and the lack of any anticoagulant therapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.0 (95%CI 2.4–6.7) per additional quartile, and OR 4.5 (95%CI 1.1–7.4) respectively). ROC curve analysis identified a D-dimer cut-off value of 2590 ng·mL−1 to best predict occurrence of PE (AUC: 0.88, p<0.001, sensitivity 83.3%, specificity 83.8%). D-dimer level >2590 ng·mL−1 was associated with a 17-fold increase in the adjusted risk of PE.ConclusionElevated D-dimers (>2590 ng·mL−1) and absence of anticoagulant therapy predict PE in hospitalised COVID-19 patients with clinical signs of severity. These data strengthen the evidence base in favour of systematic anticoagulation, and suggest wider use of D-dimer guided CTPA to screen for PE in acutely ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Background: No randomized study has investigated the value of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in optimizing the results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized study involving 240 patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes to compare OCT-guided PCI (use of OCT pre- and post-PCI; OCT-guided group) to fluoroscopy-guided PCI (angiography-guided group). The primary end point was the functional result of PCI assessed by the measure of post PCI fractional flow reserve. Secondary end points included procedural complications and type 4a periprocedural myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed by the rate of acute kidney injury. Results: OCT use led to a change in procedural strategy in 50% of the patients in the OCT-guided group. The primary end point was improved in the OCT-guided group, with a significantly higher fractional flow reserve value (0.94±0.04 versus 0.92±0.05, P =0.005) compared with the angiography-guided group. There was no significant difference in the rate of type 4a myocardial infarction (33% in the OCT-group versus 40% in the angiography-guided group, P =0.28). The rates of procedural complications (5.8%) and acute kidney injury (1.6%) were identical in each group despite longer procedure time and use of more contrast medium in the OCT-guided group. Post-PCI OCT revealed stent underexpansion in 42% of patients, stent malapposition in 32%, incomplete lesion coverage in 20%, and edge dissection in 37.5%. This led to the more frequent use of poststent overdilation in the OCT-guided group versus the angiography-guided group (43% versus 12.5%, P <0.0001) with lower residual stenosis (7.0±4.3% versus 8.7±6.3%, P =0.01). Conclusions: In patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, OCT-guided PCI is associated with higher postprocedure fractional flow reserve than PCI guided by angiography alone. OCT did not increase periprocedural complications, type 4a myocardial infarction, or acute kidney injury. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01743274.

When TAVI was first introduced, the anesthetic approach most usually chosen was general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal intubation. 10