Arrhythmias and electrocardiographic findings in Coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily causes lung infection, but recent studies have shown that cardiac involvement is associated with a worse prognosis.Objectives
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias detected by the electrocardiogram and their relationships with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.Methods
PubMed and Google were searched for studies that reported on cardiac arrhythmias and/or examined the relationship between arrhythmias and adverse outcomes.Results
Thirty studies with 12,713 participants were included in the systematic review, and 28 studies (n = 12,499) in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 61.3 ± 16.8 years; 39.3% were female. In 25 studies with 7578 patients, the overall prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4%-12.3%). The most common arrhythmias documented during hospitalization were supraventricular arrhythmias (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.4%-8.1%) followed by ventricular arrhythmias (2.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-3.1%). The incidence of cardiac arrhythmias was higher among critically ill patients (relative risk [RR]: 12.1, 95% CI: 8.5-17.3) and among non-survivors (RR: 3.8, 95%, CI: 1.7-8.7). Eight studies reported changes in the QT interval. The prevalence of QTc > 500 ms was 12.3% (95% CI: 6.9%-17.8%). ST-segment deviation was reported in eight studies, with a pooled estimate of 8.7% (95% CI: 7.3% to 10.0%).Conclusion
Our meta-analysis showed that QTc prolongation, ST-segment deviation, and various other cardiac arrhythmias were observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The presence of cardiac arrhythmias was associated with a worse prognosis.
SUBMITTER: Garcia-Zamora S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250376 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We aim to systematically review the characteristics of asymptomatic infection in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed and EMBASE were electronically searched to identify original studies containing the rate of asymptomatic infection in COVID-19 patients before 20 May 2020. Then mate-analysis was conducted using R version 3.6.2. A total of 50 155 patients from 41 studies with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infection is 15.6% (95% CI, 10.1%-23.0%). Ten included studies contain the number of presymptomatic patients, who were asymptomatic at screening point and developed symptoms during follow-up. The pooled percentage of presymptomatic infection among 180 initially asymptomatic patients is 48.9% (95% CI, 31.6%-66.2%). The pooled proportion of asymptomatic infection among 1152 COVID-19 children from 11 studies is 27.7% (95% CI, 16.4%-42.7%), which is much higher than patients from all aged groups. Abnormal CT features are common in asymptomatic COVID-19 infection. For 36 patients from 4 studies that CT results were available, 15 (41.7%) patients had bilateral involvement and 14 (38.9%) had unilateral involvement in CT results. Reduced white blood cell count, increased lactate dehydrogenase, and increased C-reactive protein were also recorded. About 15.6% of confirmed COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. Nearly half of the patients with no symptoms at detection time will develop symptoms later. Children are likely to have a higher proportion of asymptomatic infection than adults. Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients could have abnormal laboratory and radiational manifestations, which can be used as screening strategies to identify asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC7404334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7245646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether asthma has an influence on contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or having worse outcomes from COVID-19 disease.ObjectiveTo explore the prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and the relationship between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.MethodsThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. The pooled effect size (ES) was used to evaluate the association between asthma and patients with COVID-19 with poor outcomes.ResultsThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 worldwide was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.6-9.0) based on 116 articles (119 studies) with 403,392 cases. The pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with reduced risk of poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06). Similarly, the pooled ES based on unadjusted effect estimates revealed that asthma was not associated with the reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05). However, the pooled ES based on adjusted effect estimates indicated that asthma was significantly associated with reduced risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (ES 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86).ConclusionThe pooled prevalence of asthma in patients with COVID-19 was similar to that in the general population, and asthma might be an independent protective factor for the death of patients with COVID-19, which suggests that we should pay high attention to patients co-infected asthma and COVID-19 and take locally tailored interventions and treatment. Further well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to verify our findings.
| S-EPMC7889465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince its appearance in late 2019, infections caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have created unprecedented challenges for health systems worldwide. Multiple therapeutic options have been explored, including corticosteroids. Preliminary results of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are encouraging; however, the role of corticosteroids remains controversial.Research questionWhat is the impact of corticosteroids in mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and viral shedding in COVID-19 patients?Study design and methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature on corticosteroids and COVID-19 in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) of published literature through July 22, 2020, that report outcomes of interest in COVID-19 patients receiving corticosteroids with a comparative group.ResultsA total of 73 studies with 21,350 COVID-19 patients were identified. Corticosteroid use was reported widely in mechanically ventilated patients (35.3%), ICU patients (51.3%), and severe COVID-19 patients (40%). Corticosteroids showed mortality benefit in severelly ill COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0006); however, no beneficial or harmful effects were noted among high-dose or low-dose corticosteroid regimens. Emerging evidence shows that low-dose corticosteroids do not have a significant impact in the duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding. The analysis was limited by highly heterogeneous literature for high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids regimens.InterpretationOur results showed evidence of mortality benefit in severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids. Corticosteroids are used widely in COVID-19 patients worldwide, and a rapidly developing global pandemic warrants further high-quality clinical trials to define the most beneficial timing and dosing for corticosteroids.
| S-EPMC7598533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe proportion of COVID-19 patients having active pulmonary tuberculosis, and its impact on COVID-19 related patient outcomes, is not clear. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the proportion of patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis among COVID-19 patients, and to assess if comorbid pulmonary tuberculosis worsens clinical outcomes in these patients.MethodsWe queried the PubMed and Embase databases for studies providing data on (a) proportion of COVID-19 patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis or (b) severe disease, hospitalization, or mortality among COVID-19 patients with and without active pulmonary tuberculosis. We calculated the proportion of tuberculosis patients, and the relative risk (RR) for each reported outcome of interest. We used random-effects models to summarize our data.ResultsWe retrieved 3,375 citations, and included 43 studies, in our review. The pooled estimate for proportion of active pulmonary tuberculosis was 1.07% (95% CI 0.81%-1.36%). COVID-19 patients with tuberculosis had a higher risk of mortality (summary RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.56-2.39, from 17 studies) and for severe COVID-19 disease (summary RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.05-2.02, from 20 studies), but not for hospitalization (summary RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91-3.81, from four studies), as compared to COVID-19 patients without tuberculosis.ConclusionActive pulmonary tuberculosis is relatively common among COVID-19 patients and increases the risk of severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related mortality.
| S-EPMC8530351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged with a high transmissibility rate and resulted in numerous negative impacts on global life. Preventive measures such as face masks, social distancing, and vaccination helped control the pandemic. Nonetheless, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as Omega and Delta, as well as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection, raise additional concerns. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the overall prevalence of reinfection on global and regional scales.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across three databases, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest Central, including all articles pertaining to COVID-19 reinfection without language restriction. After critical appraisal and qualitative synthesis of the identified relevant articles, a meta-analysis considering random effects was used to pool the studies.ResultsWe included 52 studies conducted between 2019 and 2022, with a total sample size of 3,623,655 patients. The overall prevalence of COVID-19 reinfection was 4.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-4.8%; n = 52), with high heterogeneity between studies. Africa had the highest prevalence of 4.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.5%; n = 3), whereas Oceania and America had lower estimates of 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.4%; n = 1) and 1% (95% CI: 0.8-1.3%; n = 7), respectively. The prevalence of reinfection in Europe and Asia was 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.5%; n = 8) and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.4-4.3%; n = 43), respectively. Studies that used a combined type of specimen had the highest prevalence of 7.6% (95% CI: 5.8-9.5%; n = 15) compared with those that used oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swabs only that had lower estimates of 6.7% (95% CI: 4.8-8.5%; n = 8), and 3.4% (95% CI: 2.8-4.0%; n = 12) respectively.ConclusionCOVID-19 reinfection occurs with varying prevalence worldwide, with the highest occurring in Africa. Therefore, preventive measures, including vaccination, should be emphasized to ensure control of the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10140730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntegration of Chinese medical drugs (CMD) and western medicine (WM) has been widely used in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CMD for COVID-19.MethodA literature search was performed in six databases from injection to June 2020. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered as eligible. The quality of included RCTs were assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to do meta-analysis.ResultEleven studies with 1259 patients were included in this study. CMD included herbal decoction and Chinese patent medicine. The methodological quality was evaluated as generally unclear. The results of meta-analysis showed that the integration of CMD and WM had better efficacy than WM in number of patients turned to severe and critical type (RR = 0.47, 95% CI=[0.32, 0.69], P < 0.0001), length of hospital stay (MD= -7.95, 95% CI=[-14.66, -1.24], P = 0.02), defervescence time (MD= -1.20, 95% CI=[-2.03, -0.38], P = 0.004), cough resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.15, 1.64], P = 0.0004), fatigue resolution rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI=[1.02, 1.83], P = 0.04), and tachypnea resolution rate (RR = 2.20, 95% CI=[1.11, 4.39], P = 0.02). As for safety, there was no significant difference between two groups.ConclusionCMD may bring potential benefit to patients suffered from COVID-19. However, the quality of included trials is not good enough. High quality study with core outcome set are still required.
| S-EPMC7385501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate pooled prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity of chest computed tomography (CT) and radiographic findings for novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.MethodsWe performed systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase to identify articles reporting baseline imaging findings of COVID-19 pneumonia. The quality of the articles was assessed using NIH quality assessment tool for case series studies. The pooled prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of imaging findings were calculated.ResultsFifty-six studies (6007 patients, age, 2.1-70 years, 2887 females, 5762 CT, 396 radiographs,) were included. The mean interval between onset of symptoms and CT acquisition was 1-8 days. On CT, the pooled prevalence of ground glass opacities (GGO), GGO plus consolidation, and consolidation only was 66.9% (95% CI 60.8-72.4%), 44.9% (38.7-51.3%), and 32.1 (23.6-41.9%) respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of GGO on CT was 73% (71%-80%) and 61% (41%-78%), respectively. For GGO plus consolidation and consolidation only, the pooled sensitivities/ specificities were 58% (48%-68%)/ 58% (41%-73%) and 49% (20%-78%)/ 56% (30%-78%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of GGO and consolidation on chest radiograph was 38.7% (22.2%-58.3%) and 46.9% (29.7%-64.9%), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of radiographic findings could not be assessed due to small number of studies.ConclusionGGO on CT has the highest diagnostic performance for COVID-19 pneumonia, followed by GGO plus consolidation and consolidation only. However, the moderate to low sensitivity and specificity suggest that CT should not be used as the primary tool for diagnosis. Chest radiographic abnormalities are seen in half of the patients.
| S-EPMC7657023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.
| S-EPMC7273516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly developed into a pandemic. Increased levels of ferritin due to cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis were found in severe COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the role of ferritin in COVID-19.MethodsStudies investigating ferritin in COVID-19 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, and WANFANG. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the ferritin level between different patient groups: non-survivors versus survivors; more severe versus less severe; with comorbidity versus without comorbidity; ICU versus non-ICU; with mechanical ventilation versus without mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 52 records involving 10 614 COVID-19-confirmed patients between December 25, 2019, and June 1, 2020, were included in this meta-analysis, and 18 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The ferritin level was significantly increased in severe patients compared with the level in non-severe patients [WMD 397.77 (95% CI 306.51-489.02), P < .001]. Non-survivors had a significantly higher ferritin level compared with the one in survivors [WMD 677.17 (95% CI 391.01-963.33), P < .001]. Patients with one or more comorbidities including diabetes, thrombotic complication, and cancer had significantly higher levels of ferritin than those without (P < .01). Severe acute liver injury was significantly associated with high levels of ferritin, and its level was associated with intensive supportive care, including ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsFerritin was associated with poor prognosis and could predict the worsening of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7595919 | biostudies-literature