Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation position predicts successful defibrillation in obese and non-obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICD) are an alternative to transvenous ICDs for patients without a need for cardiac pacing. Obese patients have been proposed to be at higher risk for conversion failure with S-ICDs due to subcutaneous fat underneath the device. Optimal device positioning may promote equivalent outcomes between obese and non-obese patients by minimizing the effects of excess adipose tissue. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing defibrillation testing at the time of S-ICD implantation was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of successful conversion of ventricular fibrillation (VF) at the time of implant. The secondary endpoint was shock impedance. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included in the study. The rate of successful conversion of VF was 90.3% for obese patients (n = 72) and 96.4% for non-obese patients (n = 112) (p = 0.086). Compared to non-obese patients, obese patients had a higher mean PRAETORIAN score (78.5 ± 58.1 vs. 48.8 ± 35.5, p < 0.001) and higher measured mean impedance (82.0 ohms ± 26.5 vs. 69.8 ohms ± 19.3, p < 0.001). Patients with a PRAETORIAN score < 90 all had successful defibrillation testing regardless of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a PRAETORIAN score < 90 was associated with a 100% success rate of defibrillation testing following S-ICD implantation regardless of patient body mass index (BMI). Thus, the impact of obesity on impedance and the risk of failed shocks may be minimized with close attention to implantation technique to achieve a low PRAETORIAN score.

Hyperdynamic left ventricular ejection fraction is associated with higher mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Study objective: To compare the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with a hyperdynamic LVEF (HDLVEF) to those with a normal or reduced LVEF. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Rush University Medical Center. Participants: Of the 1682 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 419 had a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) during admission and met study inclusion criteria. Interventions: Participants were divided into reduced (LVEF < 50%), normal (≥50% and <70%), and hyperdynamic (≥70%) LVEF groups. Main outcome measures: LVEF was assessed as a predictor of 60-day mortality. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age and BMI. Results: There was no difference in 60-day mortality between patients in the reduced LVEF and normal LVEF groups (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87, p = 0.68). However, patients with an HDLVEF were more likely to die by 60 days compared to patients in the normal LVEF group (aOR 2.63 [CI: 1.36-5.05]; p < 0.01). The HDLVEF group was also at higher risk for 60-day mortality than the reduced LVEF group (aOR 3.34 [CI: 1.39-8.42]; p < 0.01). Conclusion: The presence of hyperdynamic LVEF during a COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with an increased risk of 60-day mortality, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and intensive care unit.

The prognostic value of cardiac troponin for 60 day mortality and major adverse events in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The variability of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness severity has puzzled clinicians and has sparked efforts to better predict who would benefit from rapid intervention. One promising biomarker for in-hospital morbidity and mortality is cardiac troponin (cTn). METHODS: A retrospective study of 1331 adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the Rush University System in Illinois, USA was performed. Patients without cTn measurement during their admission or a history of end stage renal disease or stage 5 chronic kidney disease were excluded. Using logistic regression adjusted for baseline characteristics, pre-existing comorbidities, and other laboratory markers of inflammation, cTn was assessed as a predictor of 60-day mortality and severe COVID-19 infection, consisting of a composite of 60-day mortality, need for intensive care unit, or requiring non-invasive positive pressure ventilation or intubation. RESULTS: A total of 772 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 69 (8.9%) had mild cTn elevation (> 1 to < 2x upper limit of normal (ULN)) and 46 (6.0%) had severe cTn elevation (≥ 2x ULN). Regardless of baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and initial c-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and ferritin, when compared to the normal cTn group, mild cTn elevation and severe cTn elevation were predictors of severe COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR [aOR] aOR 3.00 [CI: 1.51 - 6.29], P < 0.01; aOR 9.96 [CI: 2.75 - 64.23], P < 0.01, respectively); severe cTn elevation was a predictor of in-hospital mortality (aOR 2.42 [CI: 1.10 - 5.21], P < 0.05) and 60-day mortality (aOR 2.45 [CI: 1.13 - 5.25], P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In our cohort, both mild and severe initial cTn elevation were predictors of severe COVID-19 infection, while only severe cTn elevation was predictive of 60-day mortality. First cTn value on hospitalization is a valuable longitudinal prognosticator for COVID-19 disease severity and mortality.

Impact of pre-existing heart failure on 60-day outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, patients with cardiovascular disease represent a vulnerable population with higher risk for contracting COVID-19 and worse prognosis with higher case fatality rates. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and heart failure (HF) is unclear, specifically whether HF is an independent risk factor for severe infection or if other accompanying comorbidities are responsible for the increased risk. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 1331 adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection between March and June 2020 admitted at Rush University System for Health (RUSH) in metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, USA. Patients with history of HF were identified by International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code assignments extracted from the electronic medical record. Propensity score matching was utilized to control for the numerous confounders, and univariable logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between HF and 60-day morbidity and mortality outcomes. RESULTS: The propensity score matched cohort consisted of 188 patients in both the HF and no HF groups. HF patients did not have lower 60-day mortality (OR 0.81; p = 0.43) compared to patients without HF. However, those with HF were more likely to require readmission within 60 days (OR 2.88; p < 0.001) and sustain myocardial injury defined as troponin elevation within 60 days (OR 3.14; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complex network of confounders present between HF and COVID-19. When balanced for these numerous factors, those with HF appear to be at no higher risk of 60-day mortality from COVID-19 but are at increased risk for morbidity.