Dataset Information

Cardiovascular disease in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10,898 patients and proposal of a triage risk stratification tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically affected global health. Despite several studies, there is yet a dearth of data regarding the mechanisms of cardiac injury, clinical presentation, risk factors, and treatment of COVID-19-associated cardiovascular disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed at defining the clinical, electrocardiographic, and pathologic spectrum of cardiovascular disease (CVD), frequency of elevated cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and their frequency and relationship with severity of the disease and mortality in COVID-19 patients and to develop a triage risk stratification tool (TRST) that can serve as a guide for the timely recognition of the high-risk patients and mechanism-targeted therapy. We conducted an online search in databases of PubMed and Embase to identify relevant studies. Data selection was in concordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were presented as pooled frequencies, odds ratio, standardized mean difference (SMD), and forest and funnel plots.

Results

We gathered a total of 54 studies and included 35 of them in our meta-analysis. Acute cardiac injury occurred in more than 25% of cases, mortality was 20 times higher, and admission to intensive care unit increased by 13.5 times. Hypertension was the most common pre-existing comorbidity with a frequency of 29.2%, followed by diabetes mellitus (13.5%). The deceased group of patients had higher cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, with statistically significant SMD, compared with survivors. Pediatric patients were predominantly mildly affected. However, less frequently, the presentation was very similar to Kawasaki disease or Kawasaki shock syndrome. This latter presentation hass been called as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

Conclusions

There is a wide spectrum of cardiac involvement in COVID-19 patients, and hence a Triage Risk Stratification Tool can serve as a guide for the timely recognition of the high-risk patients and mechanism-targeted therapy.

SUBMITTER: Momtazmanesh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7356124 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk prediction is an essential part of clinical care, in order to allocate resources and provide care appropriately. During the COVID-19 pandemic risk prediction became a matter of political and public debate as a major clinical need to guide medical and organizational decisions. We previously presented a simplified risk stratification score based on a nomogram developed in Wuhan, China in the early phase of the pandemic. Here we aimed to validate this simplified risk stratification score in a larger patient cohort from one city in Austria. Age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein levels and creatinine levels were used to estimate the in-hospital mortality risk for COVID-19 patients in a point based score: 1 point per age decade, 4 points for oxygen saturation <92%, 8 points for CRP > 10 mg/l and 4 points for creatinine > 84 μmol/l. Between June 2020 and March 2021, during the "second wave" of the pandemic, 1,472 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to two hospitals in Graz, Austria. In 961 patients the necessary dataset to calculate the simplified risk stratification score was available. In this cohort, as in the cohort that was used to develop the score, a score above 22 was associated with a significantly higher mortality (p < 0.001). Cox regression confirmed that an increase of one point in the risk stratification score increases the 28-day-mortality risk approximately 1.2-fold. Patients who were categorized as high risk (≥22 points) showed a 3-4 fold increased mortality risk. Our simplified risk stratification score performed well in a separate, larger validation cohort. We therefore propose that our risk stratification score, that contains only two routine laboratory parameter, age and oxygen saturation as variables can be a useful and easy to implement tool for COVID-19 risk stratification and beyond. The clinical usefulness of a risk prediction/stratification tool needs to be assessed prospectively (https://www.cbmed.at/covid-19-risk-calculator/).

Project description:ObjectiveOur aim was to develop a risk stratification model to predict the presence of a potentially more sinister injury in patients exposed to a whiplash trauma.MethodsThe study base comprised of 3,115 residents who first sought healthcare contact within one week after being exposed to a whiplash trauma between 1999-2008, from within a defined geographical area, Skaraborg County in south-western Sweden. Information about gender, age, time elapsed prior to seeking care, type of health care contact, and hospitalisation was retrieved. Seventeen potential risk factors were identified and evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 3,115 patients, 215 (6.9%) required hospital admission so theoretically 93% could have been initially assessed by primary health care. However, only 46% had their first contact in primary health care. All patients had symptoms resulting in a diagnosis of whiplash injury. Four risk factors were found to be associated with hospital admission: commotio cerebri (OR 31, 19-51), fracture / luxation (OR 11, 5.1-22), serious injury (OR 41, 8.0-210), and the patient sought care during the same day as the trauma (OR 5.9, 3.7-9.5). These four risk factors explained 27% of the variation for hospital admission and the area under curve (AUC) was 0.77 (0.74-0.80). Ninety-six percent of patients (2,985) had only a whiplash injury with no other injury. These could be split into those attending health care the same day as the trauma, 1,737 (56%) with a 7.1% risk for hospital admission, and those attending health care later, 1,248 (40%) with a 1.3% risk for hospital admission.ConclusionPatients with no signs of commotio cerebri, no fracture/luxation injury, no serious injury, comprising 96% of all patients exposed to a whiplash trauma can initially be referred to primary health care for initial assessment. However, those contacting the health care the same day as the trauma should be referred to a hospital for evaluation if they can't get an appointment with a general practitioner the same day.

Project description:Lactate concentration is a robust predictor of mortality but in many low resource settings facilities for its analysis are not available. Anion gap (AG), calculated from clinical chemistry results, is a marker of metabolic acidosis and may be more easily obtained in such settings. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we investigated whether the AG predicts mortality in adult patients admitted to critical care settings.We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library and regional electronic databases from inception until May 2016. Studies conducted in any clinical setting that related AG to in-hospital mortality, in-intensive care unit mortality, 31-day mortality or comparable outcome measures were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Descriptive meta-analysis was performed and the I(2) test was used to quantify heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to identify potential sources of heterogeneity between studies.Nineteen studies reporting findings in 12,497 patients were included. Overall, quality of studies was poor and most studies were rated as being at moderate or high risk of attrition bias and confounding. There was substantial diversity between studies with regards to clinical setting, age and mortality rates of patient cohorts. High statistical heterogeneity was found in the meta-analyses of area under the ROC curve (I(2)?=?99 %) and mean difference (I(2)?=?97 %) for the observed AG. Three studies reported good discriminatory power of the AG to predict mortality and were responsible for a large proportion of statistical heterogeneity. The remaining 16 studies reported poor to moderate ability of the AG to predict mortality. Subgroup analysis suggested that intravenous fluids affect the ability of the AG to predict mortality.Based on the limited quality of available evidence, a single AG measurement cannot be recommended for risk stratification in critically ill patients. The probable influence of intravenous fluids on AG levels renders the AG an impractical tool in clinical practice. Future research should focus on increasing the availability of lactate monitoring in low resource settings.CRD42015015249 . Registered on 4th February 2015.