Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is characterized by severe lung involvement and hemodynamic alterations. Critical care ultrasonography is vital because it provides real time information for diagnosis and treatment. Suggested protocols for image acquisition and measurements have not yet been evaluated.Methods: This cross‐sectional study was conducted at two centers from 1 April 2020 to 30 May 2020 in adult patients with confirmed COVID‐19 infection admitted to the critical care unit. Cardiac and pulmonary evaluations were performed using the ORACLE protocol, specifically designed for this study, to ensure a structured process of image acquisition and limit staff exposure to the infection.Results: Eighty‐two consecutively admitted patients were evaluated. Most of the patients were males, with a median age of 56 years, and the most frequent comorbidities were hypertension and type 2 diabetes, and 25% of the patients had severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. The most frequent ultrasonographic findings were elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure (69.5%), E/e’ ratio > 14 (29.3%), and right ventricular dilatation (28%) and dysfunction (26.8%). A high rate of fluid responsiveness (82.9%) was observed. The median score (19 points) on pulmonary ultrasound did not reveal any variation between the groups. Elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality.Conclusion: The ORACLE protocol was a feasible, rapid, and safe bedside tool for hemodynamic and respiratory evaluation of patients with COVID‐19. Further studies should be performed on the alteration in pulmonary hemodynamics and right ventricular function and its relationship with outcomes.

A low proportion of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in low- to middle-income countries receive reperfusion therapy. Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the method of choice, a pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) is reasonable when primary PCI cannot be delivered on a timely basis. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a PIs compared with primary PCI in a real-world setting. This was a prospective registry that included patients with STEMI who received reperfusion during the first 12 hours from symptom onset. The primary composite end point was the occurrence of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, recurrent myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure at 30 days according to the reperfusion strategy used. The key safety end point was major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] score 3-5) at 30 days. We included 579 patients with STEMI, 49.7% underwent primary PCI and 50.2% received PIs. Those who received a PIs approach were more likely to present with Killip class > 1 and to have a history of diabetes but were less likely to have a previous cardiovascular disease diagnosis. No statistically significant difference was shown in the primary composite end point according to reperfusion strategy (hazard ratio for PIs, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.21; P = 0.24). Major bleeding was not different among groups (hazard ratio for PIs, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.86; P = 0.81). Two patients in the PIs group (0.6%) and no patients in the PCI group had intracranial bleeding (P = 0.15). In this prospective real-world registry, major cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding were not different among patients who underwent a PIs or primary PCI. The study suggests that a PIs is an effective and safe option for patients with STEMI when access to primary PCI is limited.