Cardiac imaging phenotype in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): results of the cocarde study.

Biological cardiac injury related to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection has been associated with excess mortality. However, its functional impact remains unknown. The aim of our study was to explore the impact of biological cardiac injury on myocardial functions in patients with COVID-19. 31 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (CoV+) and 16 controls (CoV-) were prospectively included in this observational study. Demographic data, laboratory findings, comorbidities, treatments and myocardial function assessed by transthoracic echocardiography were collected and analysed in CoV+ with (TnT+) and without (TnT-) elevation of troponin T levels and compared with CoV-. Among CoV+, 13 (42%) exhibited myocardial injury. CoV+/TnT + patients were older, had lower diastolic arterial pressure and were more likely to have hypertension and chronic renal failure compared with CoV+/TnT-. The control group was comparable except for an absence of biological inflammatory syndrome. Left ventricular ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain were not different among the three groups. There was a trend of decreased myocardial work and increased peak systolic tricuspid annular velocity between the CoV- and CoV + patients, which became significant when comparing CoV- and CoV+/TnT+ (2167 ± 359 vs. 1774 ± 521%/mmHg, P = 0.047 and 14 ± 3 vs. 16 ± 3 cm/s, P = 0.037, respectively). There was a decrease of global work efficiency from CoV- (96 ± 2%) to CoV+/TnT- (94 ± 4%) and then CoV+/TnT+ (93 ± 3%, P = 0.042). In conclusion, biological myocardial injury in COVID 19 has low functional impact on left ventricular systolic function.

Contribution and performance of multimodal imaging in the diagnosis and management of cardiac masses.

To evaluate the contribution and performance of multimodal imaging in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of cardiac masses. We carried out a monocentric retrospective study on patients referred for cardiac mass assessment between 2006 and 2019, and analyzed the respective contribution of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), cardiac computed tomography (CT), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography coupled with CT (18F-FDG PET-CT). For each test, we determined strategy before and after its completion (need for another imaging or decision-making) as well as result on benign, malignant or indeterminate nature. For the 119 patients included, all imaging modalities increased decision-making rates, which rose from 2 to 54%, 23 to 62%, 31 to 85% and 49 to 100% before and after TEE, CT, CMR and 18F-FDG PET-CT, respectively (P < 0.001 before vs. after). TEE was particularly efficient for atrial masses, especially for the left atrium, with a decision rate rising from 0 to 74% (P < 0.001). 18F-FDG PET-CT was the most efficient to differentiate benign and malignant etiologies (area under the curve 0.89 ± 0.06 and 0.94 ± 0.05 for benign and malignant, respectively, P < 0.001). A benign or undetermined result on each modality was associated with a good prognosis, compared to malignant. All modalities studied are useful for cardiac mass decision-making. First-line TEE is particularly efficient for atrial masses, whereas CT and CMR are useful for ventricular masses or suspicion of malignancy. A benign or malignant result for each modality is correlated to survival and 18F-FDG PET-CT is the most effective to define it.