Electrocardiographic features of 431 consecutive, critically ill COVID-19 patients: an insight into the mechanisms of cardiac involvement

Le résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: Our aim was to describe the electrocardiographic features of critical COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We carried out a multicentric, cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of 431 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized between 10 March and 14 April 2020 who died or were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation. This project is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04367129). Standard ECG was recorded at hospital admission. ECG was abnormal in 93% of the patients. Atrial fibrillation/flutter was detected in 22% of the patients. ECG signs suggesting acute right ventricular pressure overload (RVPO) were detected in 30% of the patients. In particular, 43 (10%) patients had the S1Q3T3 pattern, 38 (9%) had incomplete right bundle branch block (RBBB), and 49 (11%) had complete RBBB. ECG signs of acute RVPO were not statistically different between patients with (n = 104) or without (n=327) invasive mechanical ventilation during ECG recording (36% vs. 28%, P = 0.10). Non-specific repolarization abnormalities and low QRS voltage in peripheral leads were present in 176 (41%) and 23 (5%), respectively. In four patients showing ST-segment elevation, acute myocardial infarction was confirmed with coronary angiography. No ST-T abnormalities suggestive of acute myocarditis were detected. In the subgroup of 110 patients where high-sensitivity troponin I was available, ECG features were not statistically different when stratified for above or below the 5 times upper reference limit value. CONCLUSIONS: The ECG is abnormal in almost all critically ill COVID-19 patients and shows a large spectrum of abnormalities, with signs of acute RVPO in 30% of the patients. Rapid and simple identification of these cases with ECG at hospital admission can facilitate classification of the patients and provide pathophysiological insights.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.