Cardiovascular diseases burden in COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8239929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe body of evidence showed that there is a strong correlation between acute myocardial Injury and COVID-19 infection. However, the link between acute myocardial infection and COVID-19, the prevalence, reliability of diagnostic modalities, independent predictors, and clinical outcomes are still uncertain and a topic of debate. The current study was designed to determine the prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of acute myocardial injury based on a systematic review and meta-analysis the global published peer-reviewed works of literature.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed/Medline; Science direct, CINHAL, and LILACS from December 2019 to May 2021. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of AMI were included while case reports and reviews were excluded. The data were extracted with two independent authors in a customized format. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa appraisal tool.ResultsA total of 397 articles were identified from different databases. Thirty-seven Articles with 21, 204 participants were included while seven studies were excluded. The meta-analysis revealed that the pooled prevalence of myocardial injury during the COVID-19 pandemic was 22.33 % (95 % CI: 17.86 to 26.81, 37).ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed that mortality among patients with an acute myocardial injury during COVID-19 was more than four times more likely as compared to those without AMI. This necessitates a mitigating strategy to prevent and manage before its clinical outcomes getting worse.
| S-EPMC8316689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Exercise-induced improvements in the VO2peak of cardiac rehabilitation participants are well documented. However, optimal exercise intensity remains doubtful. This study aimed to identify the optimal exercise intensity and program length to improve VO2peak in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) following cardiac rehabilitation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included a control group and at least one exercise group. RCTs assessed cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) changes resulting from exercise interventions and reported exercise intensity, risk ratio, and confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was CRF (VO2peak or VO2 at anaerobic threshold). Two hundred and twenty-one studies were found from the initial search (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus). Following inclusion criteria, 16 RCTs were considered. Meta-regression analyses revealed that VO2peak significantly increased in all intensity categories. Moderate-intensity interventions were associated with a moderate increase in relative VO2peak (SMD = 0.71 mL-kg-1-min-1; 95% CI = [0.27-1.15]; p = 0.001) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 45%). Moderate-to-vigorous-intensity and vigorous-intensity interventions were associated with a large increase in relative VO2peak (SMD = 1.84 mL-kg-1-min-1; 95% CI = [1.18-2.50], p < 0.001 and SMD = 1.80 mL-kg-1-min-1; 95% CI = [0.82-2.78] p = 0.001, respectively), and were also highly heterogeneous with I2 values of 91% and 95% (p < 0.001), respectively. Moderate-to-vigorous and vigorous-intensity interventions, conducted for 6-12 weeks, were more effective at improving CVD patients' CRF.
| S-EPMC8037098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUnderlying disease have a critical role in vulnerability of populations for a greater morbidity and mortality when they suffer from COVID-19. The aim of current study is evaluating the prevalence of underlying disease in died people with COVID-19.MethodsThe current study have been conducted according to PRISMA guideline. International database including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and google scholar were searched for relevant studies up to 1 June. All relevant articles that reported underlying disease in died cases of COVID-19 were included in the analysis.ResultsAfter screening and excluding duplicated and irrelevant studies, 32 articles included in the analysis. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, lung disease, malignancy, cerebrovascular disease, COPD and asthma. Among all reported underlying disease, highest and lowest prevalence was related to hypertension and asthma which were estimated 46% (37% - 55%) and 3% (2%- 6%), respectively.ConclusionIn summary, underlying disease have a critical role in poor outcomes, severity of disease and high mortality rate of COVID-19 cases. Patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes should be carefully monitored and be aware of health protocols.
| S-EPMC7584167 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8238636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared as pandemic and public health emergency that infected more than 5 million people worldwide at the time of writing this protocol. Strong evidence for the burden, admission, and outcome of COVID-19 has not been published in Africa. Therefore, this protocol will be served as a guideline to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the burden, admission, and outcome of COVID-19 in Africa. Methods: Published and unpublished studies on the burden, admission, and outcome of COVID-19 in Africa and written in any language will be included. Databases (PubMed / MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Google, EMBASE, Web of Science, Microsoft Academic, WHO COVID-19 database, Cochran Library, Africa Wide Knowledge, and Africa Index Medicus) from December 2019 to May 2020 will be searched. Two independent reviewers will select, screen, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. The proportion will be measured using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis will be conducted to manage hetrogeinity. The presence of publication bias will be assessed using Egger's test and visual inspection of the funnel plots. This systematic and meta-analysis review protocol will be reported per the PRISMA-P guidelines. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will be expected to quantify the burden, admission, and outcome of COVID-19 in Africa. Systematic review registration: This protocol was submitted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in March 2020 and accepted with the registration number: CRD42020179321(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
| S-EPMC7473325 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7957832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic-review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and complications in ICU-admitted coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.Data sourcesPubMed and Web of Science databases were referenced until November 25, 2020.Data extractionWe extracted retrospective and prospective observational studies on critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Only studies reporting on cardiovascular comorbidities and complications during ICU therapy were included.Data synthesisWe calculated the pooled prevalence by a random-effects model and determined heterogeneity by Higgins' I 2 test.ResultsOf the 6346 studies retrieved, 29 were included in this review. The most common cardiovascular comorbidity was arterial hypertension (50%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-058; I 2?=?94.8%, low quality of evidence). Among cardiovascular complications in the ICU, shock (of any course) was most common, being present in 39% of the patients (95% CI, 0.20-0.59; I 2?=?95.6%; 6 studies). Seventy-four percent of patients in the ICU required vasopressors to maintain target blood pressure (95% CI, 0.58-0.88; I 2?=?93.6%; 8 studies), and 30% of patients developed cardiac injury in the ICU (95% CI, 0.19-0.42; I 2?=?91%; 14 studies). Severe heterogeneity existed among the studies.ConclusionsCardiovascular complications are common in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for COVID-19. However, the existing evidence is highly heterogeneous in terms of study design and outcome measurements. Thus, prospective, observational studies are needed to determine the impact of cardiovascular complications on patient outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7863147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID?=?CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ?5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference?=?4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR?=?7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR?=?5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR?=?3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR?=?5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference?=?-6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference?=?5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR?=?2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR?=?5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.
| S-EPMC7859578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.
| S-EPMC8231929 | biostudies-literature