Therapeutic vs prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy, in the form of either venous or arterial thromboembolism, is one of the most severe sequelae of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been associated with poorer outcomes. However, the role of therapeutic anticoagulation (tAC) or prophylactic anticoagulation (pAC) in COVID-19 patients has not been definitely established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather all the available real-world data in the field and to provide a reliable effect size of the effect on mortality of tAC compared to pAC in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Real-world studies (RWS) were identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 31th October 2021. Randomized controlled trials were excluded. Mortality and bleedings were considered as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: 10 RWS and 5541 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, tAC was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.71). There was asymmetry at the funnel plot suggesting publication bias, that was not confirmed at the Egger test (p=0.07). For the secondary endpoint, there was a non-statistically significant tendency for more bleedings in patients treated with tAC compared to pAC (RR=1.75, 95% CI 0.81-3.81). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis, based on RWS and adjusted estimates of risk, suggests a survival benefit of tAC over pAC in COVID-19 patients in the real world.

Management of myocarditis in clinical practice.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory heart muscle disease characterized by heterogeneous clinical presentation and outcome. Clinical heterogeneity of myocarditis, ranging from acute onset chest pain with electrocardiographic changes resembling an acute coronary syndrome, to arrhythmic storm and chronic decompensated heart failure, makes diagnosis challenging. However, a correct diagnosis is fundamental to proper patients' management and should always be seeked. Although a definite diagnosis is only provided by endomyocardial biopsy, the European Society of Cardiology task force on myocardial and pericardial diseases provided specific criteria for the diagnosis of clinically suspected myocarditis, which has been facilitated by the advent of noninvasive imaging tests (i.e. cardiovascular magnetic resonance based myocardial tissue characterization). Due to the heterogeneous presentation and disease course of myocarditis, a tailored treatment would be the best strategy, but a standardized management is still not available. However, over the years, new, promising therapies, such as antiviral and immune-suppressive treatment, have come side by side to the standard pharmacological heart treatment, i.e. antiheart failure medications. In this paper we will review the basic principles of myocarditis management in clinical practice, including diagnostic work-up, conventional and disease-specific therapy and patients' follow-up.

Characteristics and hospital course of patients admitted for acute cardiovascular diseases during the coronavirus disease-19 outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak in spring 2020, people may have been reluctant to seek medical care fearing infection. We aimed to assess the number, characteristics and in-hospital course of patients admitted for acute cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted urgently for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure or arrhythmias from 1 March to 31 May 2020 (outbreak period) and 2019 (control period). We evaluated the time from symptoms onset to presentation, clinical conditions at admission, length of hospitalization, in-hospital medical procedures and outcome. The combined primary end point included in-hospital death for cardiovascular causes, urgent heart transplant or discharge with a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: A similar number of admissions were observed in 2020 (N = 210) compared with 2019 (N = 207). Baseline characteristics of patients were also similar. In 2020, a significantly higher number of patients presented more than 6 h after symptoms onset (57 versus 38%, P < 0.001) and with signs of heart failure (33 versus 20%, P = 0.018), required urgent surgery (13 versus 5%, P = 0.004) and ventilatory support (26 versus 13%, P < 0.001). Hospitalization duration was longer in 2020 (median 10 versus 8 days, P = 0.03). The primary end point was met by 19 (9.0%) patients in 2020 versus 10 (4.8%) in 2019 (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Despite the similar number and types of unplanned admissions for acute cardiac conditions during the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak compared with the same period in 2019, we observed a higher number of patients presenting late after symptoms onset as well as longer and more complicated clinical courses.