Stress testing and myocardial perfusion imaging for patients after recovery from severe COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalization: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: As the coronavirus pandemic progresses, patients that have recovered from COVID-19-related hospitalization require resumption of care for other medical issues. Thus far, the literature has not detailed the experience of stress testing in this patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients that recovered from COVID-19-related hospitalizations and underwent SPECT MPI studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center. RESULTS: 15 patients (median age 60 years, 67% male) were identified with COVID-19-related hospitalization and then underwent SPECT MPI imaging after recovery. During COVID-19-related hospitalization (median length of stay 8 days), patients received various COVID-19 therapies; 3 required mechanical ventilation. Stress tests (4 Exercise, 11 Pharmacologic) were performed 65 days (interquartile range 31-94 days) after the diagnosis of COVID-19. None of the patients experienced serious adverse events during or after stress testing. One patient required regadenoson reversal using aminophylline due to chest pain. CONCLUSION: Over time, more patients that recover from COVID-19 infection will require MPI testing for myocardial ischemia evaluation. Our study provides some information regarding performing stress testing in patients who have recently recovered from COVID-19 infections requiring hospitalization. Further studies are recommended to establish formal protocols for testing in this cohort.

Prevalence of abnormal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the rate of abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) studies at a single medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to prior to the pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively studied stress single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-MPI studies performed during the peak of COVID-19 restrictions at the University of Alabama Medical Center in comparison to the same time period in 2019. RESULTS: SPECT-MPI volume was reduced from 553 per month in 2019 to 105 per month in 2020. The proportion of abnormal SPECT-MPI for the 2020 cohort (61 ± 13 years, 48% men, 41% black) was not different from the 2019 cohort (62 ± 12 years, 48% men, 42% black) (31% vs. 27%, p = 0.4). Similar proportion of patients in the 2 cohorts had abnormal myocardial perfusion, moderate-large perfusion defects, myocardial ischemia, myocardial scar, and abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction. The proportion of abnormal SPECT-MPIs was not different based on whether patients were evaluated face-to-face or by telemedicine (28% vs. 27%, p > 0.9) but was higher for cardiology providers (40% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant reduction in the number of SPECT-MPI studies performed during the peak restrictions from the pandemic. Despite this restriction, the rate of abnormal studies remained stable. Our study suggests that it remains difficult to predict which patients will have abnormal SPECT-MPI even when providers and stress laboratories are forced to prioritize the performance of studies to high-yield patients.

Preprint manuscripts and servers in the era of coronavirus disease 2019.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID-19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts. RESULTS: The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer-review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices. CONCLUSION: While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.