While pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be a major issue in COVID-19, data remain sparse. We aimed to describe the risk factors and baseline characteristics of patients with PE in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. In a retrospective multicentre observational study, we included consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients without computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-proven PE diagnosis and those who were directly admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) were excluded. Among 1240 patients (58.1% men, mean age 64 ± 17 years), 103 (8.3%) patients had PE confirmed by CTPA. The ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in the PE group (for both P < 0.001). In an univariable analysis, traditional venous thrombo-embolic risk factors were not associated with PE (P > 0.05), while patients under therapeutic dose anticoagulation before hospitalization or prophylactic dose anticoagulation introduced during hospitalization had lower PE occurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14–0.91, P = 0.04; and OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06–0.18, P < 0.001, respectively]. In a multivariable analysis, the following variables, also statistically significant in univariable analysis, were associated with PE: male gender (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003–1.069, P = 0.04), anticoagulation with a prophylactic dose (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.85, P < 0.001) or a therapeutic dose (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82–0.92, P < 0.001), C-reactive protein (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, P = 0.001), and time from symptom onset to hospitalization (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.006–1.038, P = 0.002). PE risk factors in the COVID-19 context do not include traditional thrombo-embolic risk factors but rather independent clinical and biological findings at admission, including a major contribution to inflammation.

Electrical injuries are a commonly encountered hazard in both the home and workplace. However, clinicians are often uncomfortable when faced with the patient who presents with an electric shock due to sparse literature and lack of systematic recommendations on this topic. Electrical injuries can range from minor skin burns to life threatening internal organ damage. A thorough clinical assessment to ascertain the path of current through the body and possible internal injury is essential. The main concern in an apparently stable individual after an electric shock is the potential for delayed occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias which will require monitoring in the intensive care setting. While it may be reasonable to discharge home from the emergency room selected patients with low voltage injuries, absence of syncope and a normal ECG, others may require monitoring for at least 24 h. Public education and increasing workplace as well as home safety measures are key steps in prevention. The present review summarizes current knowledge in pathophysiology, manifestations and management of electrical injuries, with specific focus on cardiac effects.

Recent studies have shown that in more than half of apparently unexplained sudden cardiac arrests (SCA), a specific aetiology can be unmasked by a careful evaluation. The characteristics and the extent to which such cases undergo a systematic thorough investigation in real-life practice are unknown. Data were analysed from an ongoing study, collecting all cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Paris area. Investigations performed during the index hospitalization or planned after discharge were gathered to evaluate the completeness of assessment of unexplained SCA. Between 2011 and 2016, among the 18 622 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 717 survivors (at hospital discharge) fulfilled the definition of cardiac SCA. Of those, 88 (12.3%) remained unexplained after electrocardiogram, echocardiography, and coronary angiography. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging yielded the diagnosis in 25 (3.5%) cases, other investigations accounted for 14 (2.4%) additional diagnoses, and 49 (6.8%) patients were labelled as idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) (48.7 ± 15 years, 69.4% male). Among those labelled IVF, only 8 (16.3%) cases benefited from a complete workup (including pharmacological testing). Younger patients [odds ratio (OR) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80–22.26] and those admitted to university centres (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.12–12.45) were more thoroughly investigated. Genetic testing and family screening were initiated in only 9 (18.4%) and 12 (24.5%) cases, respectively. Our findings suggest that complete investigations are carried out in a very low proportion of unexplained SCA. Standardized, systematic approaches need to be implemented to ensure that opportunities for specific therapies and preventive strategies (including relatives) are not missed.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has become one of the most common procedures in the electrophysiology lab with rapidly increasing volumes. Peri-procedural anaesthesia for AF ablation varies between centres, from general anaesthesia to deep or conscious sedation. The aim of this survey was to assess current sedation practices for AF ablation worldwide and its evolution over the last decade. Centres regularly performing AF ablation responded to an online survey. A total of 297 centres participated in the survey. Overall, the median (interquartile range) number of AF ablation procedures increased from 91 (43–200) to 200 (74–350) per year (P < 0.001) between 2010 and 2019. The proportion of cryoablation also increased from 17.0% to 33.2% (P < 0.001). In 2019, the most used sedation technique was general anaesthesia (40.5%), followed by conscious sedation (32.0%) and deep sedation (27.5%). Between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of procedures performed under general anaesthesia (+4.4%; P = 0.02) and deep sedation (+4.8%; P < 0.01) increased, whereas the use of conscious sedation decreased (−9.2%; P < 0.001). The most commonly used hypnotic drugs were propofol and midazolam, whereas the most commonly used opioid drugs were remifentanyl and fentanyl. This worldwide survey shows that the number of AF ablation procedures has more than doubled over the last decade and general anaesthesia remains most commonly used. Studies comparing outcomes between different sedation strategies are needed to guide optimal decision-making.

Emerging evidence suggests that atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, AF shares risk factors with numerous cardiac conditions, including coronary heart disease and heart failure—the 2 most common substrates for SCD—making the AF-SCD relationship particularly challenging to address. A careful consideration of confounding factors is essential, since interventions for AF will be effective in reducing SCD only if there is a causal association between these 2 conditions. In this translational review, we detail the plausible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms through which AF may promote or lead to SCD, as well as the existing epidemiological evidence supporting an association between AF and SCD. While the role of AF in predicting SCD in the general population appears limited and not established, AF might be integrated to improve risk stratification in some specific phenotypes. Optimal AF management, including that of its associated conditions, appears to be of interest to prevent AF-related SCD, especially because the AF-SCD relationship is in part driven by heart failure.