Observational studyOpen heart2021
Echocardiography in suspected coronavirus infection: indications, limitations and impact on clinical management.
Observational study in Open heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Echocardiography in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era: A Single Tool for Diagnosis and Prognosis.Journal of cardiovascular echographyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the use of echocardiography in patients hospitalised with suspected coronavirus infection and to assess its impact on clinical management.
methodsWe studied 79 adults from a prospective registry of inpatients with suspected coronavirus infection at a single academic centre. Echocardiographic indications included abnormal biomarkers, shock, cardiac symptoms, arrhythmia, worsening hypoxaemia or clinical deterioration. Study type (limited or complete) was assessed for each patient. The primary outcome measure was echocardiography-related change in clinical management, defined as intensive care transfer, medication changes, altered ventilation parameters or subsequent cardiac procedures within 24 hours of echocardiography. Coronavirus-positive versus coronavirus-negative patient groups were compared. The relationship between echocardiographic findings and coronavirus mortality was assessed.
results56 patients were coronavirus-positive and 23 patients were coronavirus-negative with symptoms attributed to other diagnoses. Coronavirus-positive patients more often received limited echocardiograms (70% vs 26%, p=0.001). The echocardiographic indication for coronavirus-infected patients was frequently worsening hypoxaemia (43% vs 4%) versus chest pain, syncope or clinical heart failure (23% vs 44%). Echocardiography changed management less frequently in coronavirus-positive patients (18% vs 48%, p=0.01). Among coronavirus-positive patients, 14 of 56 (25.0%) died during hospitalisation. Those who died more often had echocardiography to evaluate clinical deterioration (71% vs 24%) and had elevated right ventricular systolic pressures (37 mm Hg vs 25 mm Hg), but other parameters were similar to survivors.
conclusionsEchocardiograms performed on hospitalised patients with coronavirus infection were often technically limited, and their findings altered patient management in a minority of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.