Type of hospitalisations and in-hospital outcomes in the Italian coronary care unit network at the time of COVID-19 pandemic: the BLITZ-COVID19 Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe the epidemiology and outcome of patients hospitalised during the COVID-19 pandemic in intensive cardiac care units (ICCs). DESIGN: Non-interventional, retrospective and prospective, nationwide study. SETTING: 109 private or public ICCs in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: 6054 consecutive patients admitted to Italian ICCs during COVID-19 pandemic. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To obtain accurate and up-to-date information on epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to ICCs during the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact that the COVID-19 infection may have determined on the organisational pathways and in-hospital management of the various clinical conditions being admitted to ICCs. RESULTS: Acute coronary syndromes were the most frequent ICC discharge diagnoses followed by heart failure and hypokinetic arrhythmias. The prevalence of COVID-19 positivity was approximately 3%. Most patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis at discharge (52%) arrived to ICC from other wards, in particular 22% from non-cardiology ICCs. The overall mortality was 4.2% during ICC and 5.8% during hospital stay. The cause of in-hospital death was cardiac in 74.4% of the cases, non-cardiovascular in 13.5%, vascular in 5.8% and related to COVID-19 in 6.3% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique nationwide picture of current ICC care during COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04744415.

A case of myopericarditis recurrence after third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in a young subject: link or causality?

The rate of post-vaccine myocarditis is being studied from the beginning of the massive vaccination campaign against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although a direct cause-effect relationship has been described, in most cases, the vaccine pathophysiological role is doubtful. Moreover, it is not quite as clear as having had a previous myocarditis could be a risk factor for a post-vaccine disease relapse. A 27-year-old man presented to the emergency department for palpitations and pericardial chest pain radiated to the upper left limb, on the 4th day after the third dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. He experienced a previous myocarditis 3 years before, with full recovery and no other comorbidities. Electrocardiogram showed normal atrioventricular conduction, incomplete right bundle branch block, and diffuse ST-segment elevation. A cardiac echo showed lateral wall hypokinesis with preserved ejection fraction. Troponin-T was elevated (160 ng/L), chest X-ray was normal, and the SARS-CoV-2 molecular buffer was negative. High-dose anti-inflammatory therapy with ibuprofen and colchicine was started; in the 3rd day high-sensitivity Troponin I reached a peak of 23000 ng/L. No heart failure or arrhythmias were observed. A cardiac magnetic resonance was performed showing normal biventricular systolic function and abnormal tissue characterization suggestive for acute non-ischaemic myocardial injury (increased native T1 and T2 values, increased signal intensity at T2-weighted images and late gadolinium enhancement, all findings with matched subepicardial distribution) at the level of mid to apical septal, anterior, and anterolateral walls. A left ventricular electroanatomic voltage mapping was negative (both unipolar and bipolar), while the endomyocardial biopsy showed a picture consistent with active myocarditis. The patient was discharged in good clinical condition, on bisoprolol 1.25 mg, ramipril 2.5 mg, ibuprofen 600 mg three times a day, colchicine 0.5 mg twice a day. We presented the case of a young man with history of previous myocarditis, admitted with a non-complicated acute myopericarditis relapse occurred 4 days after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (3rd dose). Despite the observed very low incidence of cardiac complications following BNT162b2 administration, and the lack of a clear proof of a direct cause-effect relationship, we think that in our patient this link can be more than likely. In the probable need for additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses in the next future, studies addressing the risk-benefit balance of this subset of patient are warranted. We described a multidisciplinary management of a case of myocarditis recurrence after the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Outcomes of COVID-19-Associated Acute Myocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocarditis (AM) is thought to be a rare cardiovascular complication of COVID-19, although minimal data are available beyond case reports. We aim to report the prevalence, baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes for patients with COVID-19-associated AM on the basis of a retrospective cohort from 23 hospitals in the United States and Europe. METHODS: A total of 112 patients with suspected AM from 56 963 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were evaluated between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization for COVID-19 and a diagnosis of AM on the basis of endomyocardial biopsy or increased troponin level plus typical signs of AM on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We identified 97 patients with possible AM, and among them, 54 patients with definite/probable AM supported by endomyocardial biopsy in 17 (31.5%) patients or magnetic resonance imaging in 50 (92.6%). We analyzed patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes among all COVID-19-associated AM. RESULTS: AM prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was 2.4 per 1000 hospitalizations considering definite/probable and 4.1 per 1000 considering also possible AM. The median age of definite/probable cases was 38 years, and 38.9% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively). Thirty-one cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19-associated pneumonia. Twenty-one (38.9%) had a fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support. The composite of in-hospital mortality or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 20.4%. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%, 15.1% in patients with associated pneumonia versus 0% in patients without pneumonia (P=0.044). During hospitalization, left ventricular ejection fraction, assessed by echocardiography, improved from a median of 40% on admission to 55% at discharge (n=47; P<0.0001) similarly in patients with or without pneumonia. Corticosteroids were frequently administered (55.5%). CONCLUSIONS: AM occurrence is estimated between 2.4 and 4.1 out of 1000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The majority of AM occurs in the absence of pneumonia and is often complicated by hemodynamic instability. AM is a rare complication in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with an outcome that differs on the basis of the presence of concomitant pneumonia.

Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Update on Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly become a worldwide pandemic. On top of respiratory complications, COVID-19 is associated with major direct and indirect cardiovascular consequences, with the latter probably being even more relevant, especially in the setting of time-dependent cardiovascular emergencies. A growing amount of data suggests a dramatic decline in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly since patients did not activate emergency medical systems because hospitals were perceived as dangerous places regarding the infection risk. Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with AMI had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those admitted before COVID-19, potentially due to late arrival to the hospital. Finally, no consensus has been reached regarding the most adequate healthcare management pathway for AMI and shared guidance on how to handle patients with AMI during the pandemic is still needed. In this review, we will provide an update on epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients with AMI during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on its collateral cardiac impact.

"You can leave your mask on": effects on cardiopulmonary parameters of different airway protective masks at rest and during maximal exercise.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of protective masks has been essential to reduce contagions. However, public opinion is that there is an associated subjective shortness of breath. We evaluated cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and during maximal exertion to highlight any differences with the use of protective masks.12 healthy subjects performed three identical cardiopulmonary exercise tests, one without wearing a protective mask, one wearing a surgical mask and one with a filtering face piece particles class 2 (FFP2) mask. Dyspnoea was assessed using the Borg scale. Standard pulmonary function tests were also performed.All the subjects (40.8±12.4 years; six male) completed the protocol with no adverse events. Spirometry showed a progressive reduction of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) from no mask to surgical to FFP2 (FEV1: 3.94±0.91 L, 3.23±0.81 L, 2.94±0.98 L; FVC: 4.70±1.21 L, 3.77±1.02 L, 3.52±1.21 L; p<0.001). Rest ventilation, O2 uptake (V˙ O2 ) and CO2 production (V˙ CO2 ) were progressively lower, with a reduction in respiratory rate. At peak exercise, subjects had a progressively higher Borg scale when wearing surgical and FFP2 masks. Accordingly, at peak exercise, V˙ O2 (31.0±23.4 mL·kg-1·min-1, 27.5±6.9 mL·kg-1·min-1, 28.2±8.8 mL·kg-1·min-1; p=0.001), ventilation (92±26 L, 76±22 L, 72±21 L; p=0.003), respiratory rate (42±8 breaths·min-1, 38±5 breaths·min-1, 37±4 breaths·min-1; p=0.04) and tidal volume (2.28±0.72 L, 2.05±0.60 L, 1.96±0.65 L; p=0.001) were gradually lower. There was no significant difference in oxygen saturation.Protective masks are associated with significant but modest worsening of spirometry and cardiorespiratory parameters at rest and peak exercise. The effect is driven by a ventilation reduction due to increased airflow resistance. However, because exercise ventilatory limitation is far from being reached, their use is safe even during maximal exercise, with a slight reduction in performance.