A 30-Year-Old Woman With Arthralgia, Progressive Dyspnea, and a Syncope Episode.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 30-year-old White woman with presumed rheumatoid arthritis accompanied by CT scan evidence of eosinophilic pneumonitis was referred to the ED by her rheumatologist for an investigation of the progression of dyspnea. Approximately 6 months before, the patient reported experiencing diffuse interphalangeal arthralgias (both proximal and distal) that affected the wrists, knees, and feet. These symptoms were accompanied by Modified Medical Research Council scale grade 2 dyspnea. During the initial assessment, the patient exhibited slight pallor and had no indications of inflammatory activity in the joints. Furthermore, the cardiovascular physical examination and the auto-antibody laboratory profile yielded normal results. However, a wrist ultrasound scan revealed evidence of active synovitis; a chest CT scan displayed multifocal bilateral ground-glass opacities and mild thickening of the interlobular septa. These findings suggested the presence of eosinophilic disease or an acute interstitial process related to collagen vascular disease. Consequently, the patient's treatment commenced with a weekly dose of methotrexate (10 mg). Despite the intervention, 2 months later, the patient returned, reporting persistent arthralgia and a worsening of dyspnea, now classified as Modified Medical Research Council scale grade 3. Subsequently, the rheumatologist referred her to the ED for further assessment. During the initial emergency evaluation, the patient experienced a syncope episode accompanied by orthostatic prodromal symptoms that included dizziness, nausea, and malaise.

Lung ultrasound in congestion assessment of patients with advanced heart failure referred for heart transplant: Correlations with right heart catheterization findings.

Background: In advanced heart failure (HF), diagnostic performance of physical exam may be poor. Physical examination associated with lung ultrasound (LUS) may be an important tool to facilitate congestion screening. Objective: To evaluate performance of LUS for congestion screening in advanced HF referred for transplant, as compared to findings of right heart catheterization (RHC). Methods: Prospective study of 23 subjects with advanced HF referred for RHC. LUS was performed in association with clinical congestion score (CCS), analogue-visual dyspnea scale (AVDS) and presence of trepopnea/bendopnea prior to catheterization. Congestion was assessed by the number of B-lines in the LUS, and by findings of physical examination as well as by NT-proBNP serum values. Results: Congestion was present in 43.4 % of patients by LUS (B-lines ≥ 15), as compared to 21.7 % by CCS (score greater than or equal to 5), 56.5 % by NT-proBNP (>1000 pg/ml), and 60.8 % by pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (>15 mm Hg). The number of B-lines was correlated to cardiac index (CI) (rho = -0.619; p 0.002), but not with PCWP (rho 0.190; p 0.386), RAP (rho -0.244; p 0.262), CCS (rho 0.198; p 0.36) and neither with NT-proBNP (rho 0.282; p 0.193). Otherwise, NT-proBNP was correlated with PCWP (rho = 0.636; p = 0.001) and with CI (rho -0.667 p 0.001). Conclusions: In advanced HF patients referred for transplant, number of B-lines in LUS was not correlated with PCWP or RAP. Advanced HF patients seem to have increased filling pressures, but no interstitial pulmonary congestion that LUS could detect.

A predictive score for COVID-19 diagnosis using clinical, laboratory and chest image data

Abstract Objectives Differential diagnosis of COVID-19 includes a broad range of conditions. Prioritizing containment efforts, protective personal equipment and testing can be challenging. Our aim was to develop a tool to identify patients with higher probability of COVID-19 diagnosis at admission. Methods This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 100 patients admitted with suspected COVID-19. Predictive models of COVID-19 diagnosis were performed based on radiology, clinical and laboratory findings; bootstrapping was performed in order to account for overfitting. Results A total of 29% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Variables associated with COVID-19 diagnosis in multivariate analysis were leukocyte count ≤7.7 × 103 mm-3, LDH >273 U/L, and chest radiographic abnormality. A predictive score was built for COVID-19 diagnosis, with an area under ROC curve of 0.847 (95% CI 0.77-0.92), 96% sensitivity and 73.5% specificity. After bootstrapping, the corrected AUC for this model was 0.827 (95% CI 0.75-0.90). Conclusions Considering unavailability of RT-PCR at some centers, as well as its questionable early sensitivity, other tools might be used in order to identify patients who should be prioritized for testing, re-testing and admission to isolated wards. We propose a predictive score that can be easily applied in clinical practice. This score is yet to be validated in larger populations.

Análise de Escores de Risco para Predição de Mortalidade em Pacientes Submetidos à Cirurgia Cardíaca por Endocardite / Analysis of Risk Scores to Predict Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery for Endocarditis

Resumo Fundamento Escores de risco estão disponíveis para uso na prática clínica diária, mas saber qual deles escolher é ainda incerto. Objetivos Avaliar o EuroSCORE logístico, o EuroSCORE II e os escores específicos para endocardite infecciosa STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE e RISK-E na predição de mortalidade hospitalar de pacientes submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa em um hospital terciário de ensino do sul do Brasil. Métodos Estudo de coorte retrospectivo incluindo todos os pacientes com idade ≥ 18 anos submetidos à cirurgia cardíaca por endocardite ativa no centro do estudo entre 2007 e 2016. Foram realizadas análises de calibração (razão de mortalidade observada/esperada, O/E) e de discriminação (área sob a curva ROC, ASC), sendo a comparação das ASC realizada pelo teste de DeLong. P < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo Resultados Foram incluídos 107 pacientes, sendo a mortalidade hospitalar de 29,0% (IC95%: 20.4-37.6%). A melhor razão de mortalidade O/E foi obtida pelo escore PALSUSE (1,01, IC95%: 0,70-1,42), seguido pelo EuroSCORE logístico (1,3, IC95%: 0,92-1,87). O EuroSCORE logístico apresentou o maior poder discriminatório (ASC 0,77), significativamente superior ao EuroSCORE II (p = 0,03), STS-IE (p = 0,03), PALSUSE (p = 0,03), AEPEI (p = 0,03) e RISK-E (p = 0,02). Conclusões Apesar da disponibilidade dos recentes escores específicos, o EuroSCORE logístico foi o melhor preditor de mortalidade em nossa coorte, considerando-se análise de calibração (mortalidade O/E: 1,3) e de discriminação (ASC 0,77). A validação local dos escores específicos é necessária para uma melhor avaliação do risco cirúrgico. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524)

Abstract Background Risk scores are available for use in daily clinical practice, but knowing which one to choose is still fraught with uncertainty. Objectives To assess the logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II, and the infective endocarditis (IE)-specific scores STS-IE, PALSUSE, AEPEI, EndoSCORE and RISK-E, as predictors of hospital mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for active IE at a tertiary teaching hospital in Southern Brazil. Methods Retrospective cohort study including all patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent cardiac surgery for active IE at the study facility from 2007-2016. The scores were assessed by calibration evaluation (observed/expected [O/E] mortality ratio) and discrimination (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). Comparison of AUC was performed by the DeLong test. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 107 patients were included. Overall hospital mortality was 29.0% (95%CI: 20.4-37.6%). The best O/E mortality ratio was achieved by the PALSUSE score (1.01, 95%CI: 0.70-1.42), followed by the logistic EuroSCORE (1.3, 95%CI: 0.92-1.87). The logistic EuroSCORE had the highest discriminatory power (AUC 0.77), which was significantly superior to EuroSCORE II (p = 0.03), STS-IE (p = 0.03), PALSUSE (p = 0.03), AEPEI (p = 0.03), and RISK-E (p = 0.02). Conclusions Despite the availability of recent IE-specific scores, and considering the trade-off between the indexes, the logistic EuroSCORE seemed to be the best predictor of mortality risk in our cohort, taking calibration (O/E mortality ratio: 1.3) and discrimination (AUC 0.77) into account. Local validation of IE-specific scores is needed to better assess preoperative surgical risk. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(3):518-524)