Background: Bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a useful and non-invasive tool to detect lung involvement and monitor changes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical significance of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19. Method: The LUS protocol consisted of 12 scanning zones and was performed in 280 consecutive patients with COVID-19. The LUS score based on B-lines, lung consolidation and pleural line abnormalities was evaluated. Results: The median time from admission to LUS examinations was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3–10). Patients in the highest LUS score group were more likely to have a lower lymphocyte percentage (LYM%); higher levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein, hypersensitive troponin I and creatine kinase muscle-brain; more invasive mechanical ventilation therapy; higher incidence of ARDS; and higher mortality than patients in the lowest LUS score group. After a median follow-up of 14 days [IQR, 10–20 days], 37 patients developed ARDS, and 13 died. Patients with adverse outcomes presented a higher rate of bilateral involvement; more involved zones and B-lines, pleural line abnormalities and consolidation; and a higher LUS score than event-free survivors. The Cox models adding the LUS score as a continuous variable (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.02 ~ 1.08; P < 0.001; Akaike information criterion [AIC] = 272; C-index = 0.903) or as a categorical variable (HR 10.76, 95% CI 2.75 ~ 42.05; P = 0.001; AIC = 272; C-index = 0.902) were found to predict poor outcomes more accurately than the basic model (AIC = 286; C-index = 0.866). An LUS score cut-off > 12 predicted adverse outcomes with a specificity and sensitivity of 90.5% and 91.9%, respectively. Conclusions: The LUS score devised by our group performs well at predicting adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and is important for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients.

Right ventricular–pulmonary artery coupling (RV-PA coupling) refers to the relationship between RV contractility and RV afterload. Normal RV-PA coupling is maintained only when RV function and pulmonary vascular resistance are appropriately matched. RV-PA uncoupling occurs when RV contractility cannot increase to match RV afterload, resulting in RV dysfunction and right heart failure. RV-PA coupling plays an important role in the pathophysiology and progression of cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, early and accurate evaluation of RV-PA coupling is of great significance for a patient’s condition assessment, clinical decision making, risk stratification, and prognosis judgment. RV-PA coupling can be assessed by using invasive or noninvasive approaches. The aim of this review was to summarize the pathological mechanism and evaluation methods of RV-PA coupling, the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and the application value of RV-PA coupling in various cardiovascular diseases.

Heart failure (HF) is an extremely major health problem with gradually increasing incidence in developed and developing countries. HF may lead to cardiac remodeling; thus, advanced imaging techniques are required to comprehensively evaluate cardiac mechanics. Recently, three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (3D-STE) has been developed as a novel imaging technology that is based on the three-dimensional speckle-tracking on the full volume three-dimensional datasets. Three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography allows a more accurate evaluation of global and regional myocardial performance, assessment of cardiac mechanics, detection of subclinical cardiac dysfunction, and prediction of adverse clinical events in a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, this review summarizes the clinical usefulness of 3D-STE in patients with HF.

Background: Biventricular longitudinal strain has been recently demonstrated to be predictive of poor outcomes in various cardiovascular settings. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the prognostic implications of biventricular longitudinal strain in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Methods: We enrolled 132 consecutive patients with COVID-19. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain from the apical four-chamber views (LV GLS_4CH) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RV FWLS) were obtained using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography.Results: Compared with patients without cardiac injury, those with cardiac injury had higher levels of coagulopathy and inflammatory biomarkers, higher incidence of complications, more mechanical ventilation therapy, and higher mortality. Patients with cardiac injury displayed decreased LV GLS_4CH and RV FWLS, elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and higher proportion of pericardial effusion. Higher biomarkers levels of inflammation and cardiac injury, and the presence of pericardial effusion were correlated with decreases in LV GLS_4CH and RV FWLS. During hospitalization, 19 patients died. Compared with survivors, LV GLS_4CH and RV FWLS were impaired in non-survivors. At a 3-month follow-up after discharge, significant improvements were observed in LV GLS_4CH and RV FWLS. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that LV GLS_4CH [hazard ratio: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.011] and RV FWLS (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.09–1.52; P = 0.003) were independent predictors of higher mortality in patients with COVID-19.Conclusions: LV GLS_4CH and RV FWLS are independent and strong predictors of higher mortality in COVID-19 patients and can track improvement during the convalescent phase of their illness. Therefore, biventricular longitudinal strain may be crucial for risk stratification and serial follow-up in patients with COVID-19.

Background: Right ventricular longitudinal strain of free wall (RV FWLS) assessed by two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) is recognized as an independent predictor of poor prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the prognostic implications of three-dimensional STE (3D-STE) parameters in patients with HFpEF have not been well-established. The purpose of our study was to determine whether 3D-STE parameters were the more powerful predictors of poor outcomes in HFpEF patients compared with 2D-STE indices.Methods: Eighty-one consecutive patients with HFpEF were studied by 2D-STE and 3D-STE. RV volumes, ejection fraction (EF) and 3D-RVFWLS were measured by 3D-STE. 2D-RVFWLS was determined by 2D-STE. Patients were followed for the primary end point of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and death for HF.Results: After a median follow-up period of 17 months, 39 (48%) patients reached the end point of cardiovascular events. Compared with HFpEF patients without end-point events, those with end-point events had lower RVEF and 3D-RVFWLS (P < 0.05). Separate multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed that 3D-RVFWLS (HR 5.73; 95% CI 2.77–11.85; P < 0.001), RVEF (HR 3.47; 95% CI 1.47–8.21; P = 0.005), and 2D-RVFWLS (HR 3.17; 95% CI 1.54–6.53; P = 0.002) were independent predictors of adverse outcomes. The models with 3D-RVFWLS (AIC = 246, C-index = 0.75) and RVEF (AIC = 247, C-index = 0.76) had similar predictive performance for future clinical events as with 2D-RVFWLS (AIC = 248, C-index = 0.74).Conclusions: 3D-STE parameters are powerful predictors of poor outcomes, providing a similar predictive value as 2D-STE indices in patients with HFpEF. These findings support the potential of RV 3D-STE to identify HFpEF patients at higher risk for adverse cardiac events.