Dataset Information

Cardiovascular diseases burden in COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs.

Results

Fifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

Findings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.

SUBMITTER: Hessami A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7561581 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Sarcopenia is an age-related disease and is often accompanied by other diseases. Now, many studies have shown that cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) may raise the incidence rate of sarcopenia. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with CVDs compared with the general population, defined as relatively healthy non-hospitalized subjects. The databases of PubMed, Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published up to 12 November 2022. Two assessment tools were used to evaluate study quality and the risk of bias. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA 14.0 and R Version 4.1.2. Thirty-eight out of the 89 629 articles retrieved were included in our review. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 10.1% to 68.9% in patients with CVDs, and the pooled prevalence was 35% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 28-42%). The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was 32% (95% CI: 23-41%) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), 61% (95% CI: 49-72%) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), 43% (95% CI: 2-85%) in patients with coronary artery disease, 30% (95% CI: 25-35%) in patients with cardiac arrhythmia (CA), 35% (95% CI: 10-59%) in patients with congenital heart disease and 12% (95% CI: 7-17%) in patients with unclassed CVDs. However, in the general population, the prevalence of sarcopenia varied from 2.9% to 28.6% and the pooled prevalence was 13% (95% CI: 9-17%), suggesting that the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with CVDs was about twice compared with the general population. The prevalence of sarcopenia was significantly higher only in patients with ADHF, CHF and CA compared with the general population. There is a positive correlation between CVDs and sarcopenia. The prevalence of sarcopenia is higher in patients with CVDs than that in the general population. With global aging, sarcopenia has brought a heavy burden to individuals and society. Therefore, it is important to identify the populations with high-risk or probable sarcopenia in order to do an early intervention, such as exercise, to counteract or slow down the progress of sarcopenia.

Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsEligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.ResultsOf 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has infected over 35 million people worldwide and led to over 1 million deaths. Several risk factors that increase COVID-19 severity have emerged, including age and a history of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or kidney disease. However, a number of outstanding questions persist, including whether the above comorbidities correlate with increased mortality from COVID-19 or whether age is a significant confounding variable that accounts for the observed relationship between COVID-19 severity and other comorbidities.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies documenting COVID-19 patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, or chronic kidney disease. We classified COVID-19 cases into severe/non-severe or deceased/surviving and calculated the odds ratio (OR) for each of the four comorbidities in these cohorts. 36 studies, comprising 22,573 patients, are included in our meta-analysis. We found that hypertension is the most prevalent comorbidity in deceased COVID-19 patients (55.4%; CI: 49.4-61.3%), followed by cardiovascular disease (30.7%; CI: 22.6-38.8%), cerebrovascular disease (13.4%; CI: 9.12-19.2%), then chronic kidney disease (9.05%; CI: 5.57-15.0%). The risk of death is also significantly higher for patients with these comorbidities, with the greatest risk factor being chronic kidney disease (OR: 8.86; CI: 5.27-14.89), followed by cardiovascular disease (OR: 6.87; CI: 5.56-8.50), hypertension (OR: 4.87; CI: 4.19-5.66), and cerebrovascular disease (OR: 4.28; CI: 2.86-6.41). These risks are significantly higher than previously reported, while correlations between comorbidities and COVID-19 severity are similar to previously reported figures. Using meta-regression analysis with age as a moderating variable, we observed that age contributes to the observed risks but does not explain them fully.ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis, we observed that cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and kidney-related comorbidities in COVID-19 significantly contributes to greater risk of mortality and increased disease severity. We also demonstrated that age may not be a confounder to these associations.

Project description:Background: This study aims to explore the role of low-dose rivaroxaban (≤10 mg daily) for the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with ASCVD including coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). Literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two researchers. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effect models to determine risks of outcomes in ASCVD patients treated with rivaroxaban and comparators, and meta-analysis was conducted via Review Manager 5.3.5 software. Results: 3,768 records were obtained through literature search, and 9 articles representing 6 RCTs ultimately qualified for this study. The meta-analysis indicated that for patients with CAD, the addition of rivaroxaban (5 mg daily) to aspirin could significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with aspirin alone (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91, p = 0.0004, I2 = 60%, 4 studies). For PAD patients receiving rivaroxaban (5 mg daily) plus aspirin, there was no significant reduction in the risk of MACEs (HR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.13, p = 0.25, I2 = 74%, 2 studies); however, there was significant reduction in major adverse limb events (MALEs) (HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.83, p = 0.005, one studies) and in the composite of MACEs or MALEs (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95, p = 0.02, I2 = 66%, 2 studies) when compared with patients receiving aspirin alone. Meanwhile, rivaroxaban combined with aspirin significantly increased the risk of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding compared with aspirin alone in patients with CAD (HR 1.74, 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.13, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%, 2 studies) and PAD (HR 1.47, 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.83, p = 0.0004, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). Conclusions: Compared with standard antiplatelet therapy, the addition of a 5 mg daily dose of rivaroxaban to standard antiplatelet therapy may improve cardiovascular or limb outcomes of patients with ASCVD, with an increase in major bleeding. Patients who would benefit from the addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet agents and appropriate dual-pathway antithrombotic strategies should be identified in clinical practice to individualize antithrombotic therapy.

Project description:IntroductionCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number one cause of death globally, impacting on public and private sectors. Current traditional interventions to prevent CVDs are mainly provided in healthcare centres and even when they are effective, they are not enough to reduce the rising prevalence; therefore, additional strategies are needed. Evidence suggests that health interventions in the workplace supply numerous benefits improving cardiovascular risk factor profiles in individuals. Hence, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to collate the evidence from randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of workplace interventions to determine their effectiveness in terms of improving cardiovascular risk factors and preventing CVDs.Methods and analysisEMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global will be searched to include articles on workplace interventions in adults for CVDs events, cardiometabolic risk factors or behavioural risk factors. The study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence will be conducted by two reviewers working in parallel and disagreements will be resolved by consensus or consultations with a third reviewer. Data synthesis will be done by meta-analysis using random-effects models when possible, otherwise the vote counting method will be applied. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by a χ2 test and I2 statistics. The quality of the body of evidence for each outcome will be assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review protocol. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available.Prospero registration numberCRD42021276161.