Dataset Information

Cardiac sequelae after coronavirus disease 2019 recovery: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been implicated in a wide spectrum of cardiac manifestations following the acute phase of the disease.

Objectives

To assess the range of cardiac sequelae after COVID-19 recovery.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, Scopus (inception through 17 February 2021) and Google scholar (2019 through 17 February 2021).

Study eligibility criteria

Prospective and retrospective studies, case reports and case series.

Participants

Adult patients assessed for cardiac manifestations after COVID-19 recovery.

Exposure

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed by PCR.

Methods

Systematic review.

Results

Thirty-five studies (fifteen prospective cohort, seven case reports, five cross-sectional, four case series, three retrospective cohort and one ambidirectional cohort) evaluating cardiac sequelae in 52 609 patients were included. Twenty-nine studies used objective cardiac assessments, mostly cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in 16 studies, echocardiography in 15, electrocardiography (ECG) in 16 and cardiac biomarkers in 18. Most studies had a fair risk of bias. The median time from diagnosis/recovery to cardiac assessment was 48 days (1-180 days). Common short-term cardiac abnormalities (<3 months) included increased T1 (proportion: 30%), T2 (16%), pericardial effusion (15%) and late gadolinium enhancement (11%) on CMR, with symptoms such as chest pain (25%) and dyspnoea (36%). In the medium term (3-6 months), common changes included reduced left ventricular global longitudinal strain (30%) and late gadolinium enhancement (10%) on CMR, diastolic dysfunction (40%) on echocardiography and elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (18%). In addition, COVID-19 survivors had higher risk (risk ratio 3; 95% CI 2.7-3.2) of developing heart failure, arrythmias and myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

COVID-19 appears to be associated with persistent/de novo cardiac injury after recovery, particularly subclinical myocardial injury in the earlier phase and diastolic dysfunction later. Larger well-designed and controlled studies with baseline assessments are needed to better measure the extent of cardiac injury and its clinical impact.

SUBMITTER: Ramadan MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8220864 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in efforts to identify therapies to ameliorate adverse clinical outcomes. The recognition of the key role for increased inflammation in COVID-19 has led to a proliferation of clinical trials targeting inflammation. The purpose of this review is to characterize the current state of immunotherapy trials in COVID-19, and focuses on associated cardiotoxicities, given the importance of pharmacovigilance. The search terms related to COVID-19 were queried in ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 1621 trials were identified and screened for interventional trials directed at inflammation. Trials (n = 226) were fully assessed for the use of a repurposed drug, identifying a total of 141 therapeutic trials using a repurposed drug to target inflammation in COVID-19 infection. Building on the results of the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial demonstrating the benefit of low dose dexamethasone in COVID-19, repurposed drugs targeting inflammation are promising. Repurposed drugs directed at inflammation in COVID-19 primarily have been drawn from cancer therapies and immunomodulatory therapies, specifically targeted anti-inflammatory, anti-complement, and anti-rejection agents. The proposed mechanisms for many cytokine-directed and anti-rejection drugs are focused on evidence of efficacy in cytokine release syndromes in humans or animal models. Anti-complement-based therapies have the potential to decrease both inflammation and microvascular thrombosis. Cancer therapies are hypothesized to decrease vascular permeability and inflammation. Few publications to date describe using these drugs in COVID-19. Early COVID-19 intervention trials have re-emphasized the subtle, but important cardiotoxic sequelae of potential therapies on outcomes. The volume of trials targeting the COVID-19 hyper-inflammatory phase continues to grow rapidly with the evaluation of repurposed drugs and late-stage investigational agents. Leveraging known clinical safety profiles and pharmacodynamics allows swift investigation in clinical trials for a novel indication. Physicians should remain vigilant for cardiotoxicity, often not fully appreciated in small trials or in short time frames.

Project description:BackgroundMultisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with coronavirus disease 2019 causes significant cardiovascular involvement, which can be a determinant of clinical course and outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether echocardiographic measures of ventricular function were independently associated with adverse clinical course and cardiac sequelae in patients with MIS-C.MethodsIn a longitudinal observational study of 54 patients with MIS-C (mean age, 6.8 ± 4.4 years; 46% male; 56% African American), measures of ventricular function and morphometry at initial presentation, predischarge, and at a median of 3- and 10-week follow-up were retrospectively analyzed and were compared with those in 108 age- and gender-matched normal control subjects. The magnitude of strain is expressed as an absolute value. Risk stratification for adverse clinical course and outcomes were analyzed among the tertiles of clinical and echocardiographic data using analysis of variance and univariate and multivariate regression.ResultsMedian left ventricular apical four-chamber peak longitudinal strain (LVA4LS) and left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) at initial presentation were significantly decreased in patients with MIS-C compared with the normal cohort (16.2% and 15.1% vs 22.3% and 22.0%, respectively, P < .01). Patients in the lowest LVA4LS tertile (<13%) had significantly higher C-reactive protein and high-sensitivity troponin, need for intensive care, and need for mechanical life support as well as longer hospital length of stay compared with those in the highest tertile (>18.5%; P < .01). Initial LVA4LS and LVGLS were normal in 13 of 54 and 10 of 39 patients, respectively. There was no mortality. In multivariate regression, only LVA4LS was associated with both the need for intensive care and length of stay. At median 10-week follow-up to date, seven of 36 patients (19%) and six of 25 patients (24%) had abnormal LVA4LS and LVGLS, respectively. Initial LVA4LS < 16.2% indicated abnormal LVA4LS at follow-up with 100% sensitivity.ConclusionImpaired LVGLS and LVA4LS at initial presentation independently indicate a higher risk for adverse acute clinical course and persistent subclinical left ventricular dysfunction at 10-week follow-up, suggesting that they could be applied to identify higher risk children with MIS-C.

Project description:Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical staff, especially in the COVID-19 period. The COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is highly infectious, thus requiring additional measures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Since CPR is a highly aerosol-generating procedure, it carries a substantial risk of viral transmission. We hypothesized that patients with diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 might have worse outcomes following OHCA outcomes compared to non-COVID-19 patients. To raise awareness of this potential problem, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported OHCA in the pandemic period, comparing COVID-19 suspected or diagnosed patients vs. COVID-19 not suspected or diagnosed group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge (SHD). Secondary outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission or survival with favorable neurological outcomes. Data including 4210 patients included in five studies were analyzed. SHD in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 0.5% and 2.6%, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 0.25; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.12, 0.53; p < 0.001). Bystander CPR rate was comparable in the COVID-19 vs. not COVID-19 group (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.22; p = 0.43). Shockable rhythms were observed in 5.7% in COVID-19 patients compared with 37.4% in the non-COVID-19 group (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.96; p = 0.04; I2 = 95%). ROSC in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 13.3% vs. 26.5%, respectively (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81; p < 0.001). SHD with favorable neurological outcome was observed in 0% in COVID-19 vs. 3.1% in non-COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.07, 26.19; p = 0.84). Our meta-analysis suggests that suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 reduces the SHD rate after OHCA, which seems to be due to the lower rate of shockable rhythms in COVID-19 patients, but not due to reluctance to bystander CPR. Future trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results and determine the optimal procedures to increase survival after OHCA in COVID-19 patients.

Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented emergency departments (EDs) with many challenges to address the acute care needs of patients. Many EDs have leveraged telehealth to innovatively respond to these challenges. This review describes the landscape of telehealth initiatives in emergency care that have been described during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature using PubMed, supplemented by a review of the gray literature (ie, non-peer reviewed), with input from subject matter experts to identify telehealth initiatives in emergency care during coronavirus disease 2019. We categorized types of telehealth use based on purpose and user characteristics.ResultsWe included 27 papers from our review of the medical literature and another 8 sources from gray literature review. The vast majority of studies (32/35) were descriptive in nature, with the additional inclusion of 2 cohort studies and one randomized clinical trial. There were 5 categories of ED telehealth use during the pandemic: (1) pre-ED evaluation and screening, (2) within ED (including as a means of limiting staff and patient exposure and facilitating consultation with specialists), (3) post-ED discharge monitoring and treatment, (4) educating trainees and health care workers, and (5) coordinating resources and patient care.ConclusionTelehealth has been used in a variety of manners during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, enabling innovation in emergency care delivery. The findings from this study can be used by institutions to consider how telehealth may address challenges in emergency care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond. Because few studies included cost data and given the variability in institutional resources, how organizations implement telehealth programs will likely vary. Future work should further explore barriers and facilitators of innovation, and the impact on care delivery and patient outcomes.