Background Myocardial injury is frequent among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and is associated with a poor prognosis. However, the mechanisms of myocardial injury remain unclear and prior studies have not reported cardiovascular imaging data. Objectives This study sought to characterize the echocardiographic abnormalities associated with myocardial injury and their prognostic impact in patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted an international, multicenter cohort study including 7 hospitals in New York City and Milan of hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who had undergone transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) and electrocardiographic evaluation during their index hospitalization. Myocardial injury was defined as any elevation in cardiac troponin at the time of clinical presentation or during the hospitalization. Results A total of 305 patients were included. Mean age was 63 years and 205 patients (67.2%) were male. Overall, myocardial injury was observed in 190 patients (62.3%). Compared with patients without myocardial injury, those with myocardial injury had more electrocardiographic abnormalities, higher inflammatory biomarkers and an increased prevalence of major echocardiographic abnormalities that included left ventricular wall motion abnormalities, global left ventricular dysfunction, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction grade II or III, right ventricular dysfunction and pericardial effusions. Rates of in-hospital mortality were 5.2%, 18.6%, and 31.7% in patients without myocardial injury, with myocardial injury without TTE abnormalities, and with myocardial injury and TTE abnormalities. Following multivariable adjustment, myocardial injury with TTE abnormalities was associated with higher risk of death but not myocardial injury without TTE abnormalities. Conclusions Among patients with COVID-19 who underwent TTE, cardiac structural abnormalities were present in nearly two-thirds of patients with myocardial injury. Myocardial injury was associated with increased in-hospital mortality particularly if echocardiographic abnormalities were present.

Background-Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) has emerged as an important treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential cost-effectiveness of RFA for AF, relative to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, has not been fully explored from a US perspective. Methods and Results-We constructed a Markov disease simulation model for a hypothetical cohort of patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF, treated either with RFA with/without AAD or AAD alone. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were projected over 5 years. Model inputs were drawn from published clinical trial and registry data, from new registry and trial data analysis, and from data prospectively collected from patients with AF treated with RFA at our institution. We assumed no benefit from ablation on stroke, heart failure or death, but did estimate changes in quality-adjusted life expectancy using data from several AF cohorts. In the base case scenario, cumulative costs with the RFA and AAD strategies were $26 584 and $19 898, respectively. Over 5 years, quality-adjusted life expectancy was 3.51 quality-adjusted life-years with RFA versus 3.38 for the AAD group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RFA versus AAD was thus $51 431 per quality-adjusted life-year. Model results were most sensitive to time horizon, the relative utility weights of successful ablation versus unsuccessful drug therapy, and to the cost of an ablation procedure. Conclusions-RFA with/without AAD for symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal AF appears to be reasonably cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone from the perspective of the US health care system, based on improved quality of life and avoidance of future health care costs. (Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol. 2009;2:362-369.)

No abstract