Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37436445›Full record

Observational studyIntensive care medicine2023

Echocardiography phenotypes of right ventricular involvement in COVID-19 ARDS patients and ICU mortality: post-hoc (exploratory) analysis of repeated data from the ECHO-COVID study.

Stephen Huang, Antoine Vieillard-Baron, Bruno Evrard, Gwenaël Prat, Michelle S Chew, Martin Balik, Fernando Clau-Terré, Daniel De Backer, Armand Mekontso Dessap, Sam Orde and 5 more

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Intensive care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation and Management of Sepsis in Pulmonary Hypertension.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Stephen HuangIntensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, NBMLHD, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Antoine Vieillard-BaronService de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Hospital Ambroise Paré, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Bruno EvrardMedical-Surgical ICU, Inserm CIC 1435, Dupuytren Teaching Hospital, 87000, Limoges, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1829-4927
Gwenaël PratService de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, CHU Cavale Blanche Brest, Brest, France.
Michelle S ChewDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Martin BalikDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, General University Hospital and 1St Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Fernando Clau-TerréDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Daniel De BackerCHIREC Hospitals Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Armand Mekontso DessapService de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Groupe de Recherche Clinique CARMAS, Inserm U955, Université Paris-Est Créteil, 94000, Créteil, France.
Sam OrdeIntensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, NBMLHD, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrea MorelliDepartment Clinical Internal Anesthesiological and Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Rome, "La Sapienza", Policlinico Umberto Primo, Viale del Policlinico, Rome, Italy.
Filippo SanfilippoDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele University Hospital, Catania, Italy.
Cyril CharronService de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Hospital Ambroise Paré, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Philippe VignonMedical-Surgical ICU, Inserm CIC 1435, Dupuytren Teaching Hospital, 87000, Limoges, France. philippe.vignon@unilim.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4551-5772
ECHO-COVID study group
Inserm · FRAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico - Vittorio Emanuele · ITCharles University · CZLinköping University · SEThe University of Sydney · AUVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ESCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRHôpital Dupuytren · FRPoliclinico Umberto I · ITUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeExploratory study to evaluate the association of different phenotypes of right ventricular (RV) involvement and mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

methodsPost-hoc analysis of longitudinal data from the multicenter ECHO-COVID observational study in ICU patients who underwent at least two echocardiography examinations. Echocardiography phenotypes were acute cor pulmonale (ACP, RV cavity dilatation with paradoxical septal motion), RV failure (RVF, RV cavity dilatation and systemic venous congestion), and RV dysfunction (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion ≤ 16 mm). Accelerated failure time model and multistate model were used for analysis.

resultsOf 281 patients who underwent 948 echocardiography studies during ICU stay, 189 (67%) were found to have at least 1 type of RV involvements during one or several examinations: ACP (105/281, 37.4%), RVF (140/256, 54.7%) and/or RV dysfunction (74/255, 29%). Patients with all examinations displaying ACP had survival time shortened by 0.479 [0.284-0.803] times when compared to patients with all examinations depicting no ACP (P = 0.005). RVF showed a trend towards shortened survival time by a factor of 0.642 [0.405-1.018] (P = 0.059), whereas the impact of RV dysfunction on survival time was inconclusive (P = 0.451). Multistate analysis showed that patients might transit in and out of RV involvement, and those who exhibited ACP in their last critical care echocardiography (CCE) examination had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 3.25 [2.38-4.45], P < 0.001).

conclusionRV involvement is prevalent in patients ventilated for COVID-19 ARDS. Different phenotypes of RV involvement might lead to different ICU mortality, with ACP having the worst outcome.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory Distress SyndromeVentricular Dysfunction, RightEchocardiographyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPhenotypeARDSCor pulmonaleCOVID-19MortalityRight ventricular dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID37436445
OpenAlexW4383998122

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.