A distinct septal pattern of late gadolinium enhancement specific for COVID-induced myocarditis: A multicenter cardiovascular magnetic resonance study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a great medical challenge as it provokes acute respiratory distress and has pulmonary manifestations and cardiovascular (CV) consequences. AIMS: This study compared cardiac injury in COVID-19 myocarditis patients with non-COVID-19 myocarditis patients. METHODS: Patients who recovered from COVID-19 were scheduled for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) owing to clinical myocarditis suspicion. The retrospective non-COVID-19 myocarditis (2018-2019) group was enrolled (n = 221 patients). All patients underwent contrast-enhanced CMR, the conventional myocarditis protocol, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). The COVID study group included 552 patients at a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 45.9 (12.6) years. RESULTS: CMR assessment confirmed myocarditis-like LGE in 46% of the cases (68.5% of the segments with LGE <25% transmural extent), left ventricular (LV) dilatation in 10%, and systolic dysfunction in 16% of cases. The COVID-19 myocarditis group showed a smaller median (interquartile range [IQR]) LV LGE (4.4% [2.9%-8.1%] vs. 5.9% [4.4%-11.8%]; P <0.001), lower LV end-diastolic volume (144.6 [125.5-178] ml vs. 162.8 [136.6-194] ml; P <0.001), limited functional consequence (left ventricular ejection fraction, 59% [54.1%-65%] vs. 58% [52%-63%]; P = 0.01), and a higher rate of pericarditis (13.6% vs. 6%; P = 0.03) compared to non-COVID-19 myocarditis. The COVID-19-induced injury was more frequent in septal segments (2, 3, 14), and non-COVID-19 myocarditis showed higher affinity to lateral wall segments (P <0.01). Neither obesity nor age was associated with LV injury or remodeling in subjects with COVID-19 myocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-induced myocarditis is associated with minor LV injury with a significantly more frequent septal pattern and a higher pericarditis rate than non-COVID-19 myocarditis.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as a COVID-19 manifestation in a recent heart transplant recipient.

< p > < /p >.

Comparison of reorganized versus unaltered cardiology departments during the COVID-19 era: A subanalysis of the COV-HF-SIRIO 6 study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous cardiology departments were reorganized to provide care for COVID-19 patients. We aimed to compare the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and in-hospital mortality in reorganized vs. unaltered cardiology departments. METHODS: The present research is a subanalysis of a multicenter retrospective COV-HF-SIRIO 6 study that includes all patients (n = 101,433) hospitalized in 24 cardiology departments in Poland between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020, with a focus on patients with acute heart failure (AHF). RESULTS: Reduction of all-cause hospitalizations was 50.6% vs. 21.3% for reorganized vs. unaltered cardiology departments in 2020 vs. 2019, respectively (p < 0.0001). Considering AHF alone respective reductions by 46.5% and 15.2% were registered (p < 0.0001). A higher percentage of patients was brought in by ambulance to reorganized vs. unaltered cardiology departments (51.7% vs. 34.6%; p < 0.0001) alongside with a lower rate of self-referrals (45.7% vs. 58.4%; p < 0.0001). The rate of all-cause in-hospital mortality in AHF patients was higher in reorganized than unaltered cardiology departments (10.9% vs. 6.4%; p < 0.0001). After the exclusion of patients with concomitant COVID-19, the mortality rates did not differ significantly (6.9% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: A greater reduction in hospital admissions in 2020 vs. 2019, higher rates of patients brought by ambulance together with lower rates of self-referrals and higher all-cause in-hospital mortality for AHF due to COVID-19 related deaths were observed in cardiology departments reorganized to provide care for COVID-19 patients vs. unaltered ones.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Findings in Patients Recovered from COVID-19 Pneumonia and Presenting with Persistent Cardiac Symptoms: The TRICITY-CMR Trial.

The prevalence and clinical consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related non-ischemic cardiac injury are under investigation. The main purpose of this study was to determine the occurrence of non-ischemic cardiac injury using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in patients with persistent cardiac symptoms following recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia. We conducted a single-center, cross-sectional study. Between January 2021 and May 2021, we enrolled 121 patients with a recent COVID-19 infection and persistent cardiac symptoms. Study participants were divided into those who required hospitalization during the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 58; 47.9%) and those non-hospitalized (n = 63; 52.1%). Non-ischemic cardiac injury (defined as the presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) lesion and/or active myocarditis in CMR) was detected in over half of post-COVID-19 patients (n = 64; 52.9%). LGE lesions were present in 63 (52.1%) and active myocarditis in 10 (8.3%) post-COVID-19 study participants. The majority of LGE lesions were located in the left ventricle at inferior and inferolateral segments at the base. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of LGE lesions (35 (60.3%) vs. 28 (44.4%); p = 0.117) or active myocarditis (6 (10.3%) vs. 4 (6.3%); p = 0.517) between hospitalized and non-hospitalized post-COVID-19 patients. However, CMR imaging revealed lower right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF; 49.5 (44; 54) vs. 53 (50; 58) %; p = 0.001) and more frequent presence of reduced RVEF (60.3% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.005) in the former subgroup. In conclusion, more than half of our patients presenting with cardiac symptoms after a recent recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia had CMR imaging abnormalities indicating non-ischemic cardiac injury. The most common finding was LGE, while active myocarditis was detected in the minority of patients. CMR imaging abnormalities were observed both in previously hospitalized and non-hospitalized post-COVID-19 patients. Further research is needed to determine the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19 infection and the optimal management of patients with suspected post-COVID-19 non-ischemic cardiac injury.

Comparing Atrial-Fibrillation Validated Rapid Scoring Systems in the Long-Term Mortality Prediction in Patients Referred for Elective Coronary Angiography: A Subanalysis of the Bialystok Coronary Project.

Rapid scoring systems validated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may be useful beyond their original purpose. Our aim was to assess the utility of CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and 2MACE scores in predicting long-term mortality in the population of the Bialystok Coronary Project, including AF patients. The initial study population consisted of 7409 consecutive patients admitted for elective coronary angiography between 2007 and 2016. The study endpoint was all-cause mortality, which occurred in 1244 (16.8%) patients during the follow-up, ranging from 1283 to 3059 days (median 2029 days). We noticed substantially increased all-cause mortality in patients with higher values of all compared scores. The accuracy of the scores in predicting all-cause mortality was also assessed using the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. The greatest predictive value for mortality was recorded for the CHA2DS2-VASc score in the overall study population (area under curve [AUC] = 0.665; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.645-0.681). We observed that the 2MACE score (AUC = 0.656; 95%CI 0.619-0.681), but not the HAS-BLED score, had similar predictive value to the CHA2DS2-VASc score for all-cause mortality in the overall study population. In AF patients, all scores did not differ in all-cause mortality prediction. Additionally, we found that study participants with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3 vs. <3 had a 3-fold increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality (odds ratio 3.05; 95%CI 2.6-3.6). Our study indicates that clinical scores initially validated in AF patients may be useful for predicting mortality in a broader population (e.g., in patients referred for elective coronary angiography). According to our findings, all compared scores have a moderate predictive value. However, in our study, the CHA2DS2-VASc and 2MACE scores outperformed the HAS-BLED score in terms of the long-term all-cause mortality prediction.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on acute heart failure admissions and mortality: a multicentre study (COV-HF-SIRIO 6 study).

AIMS: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the landscape of medical care delivery worldwide. We aimed to assess the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and in-hospital mortality rate in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in a retrospective, multicentre study. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020, a total of 101 433 patients were hospitalized in 24 Cardiology Departments in Poland. The number of patients admitted due to AHF decreased by 23.4% from 9853 in 2019 to 7546 in 2020 (P < 0.001). We noted a significant reduction of self-referrals in the times of COVID-19 pandemic accounting 27.8% (P < 0.001), with increased number of AHF patients brought by an ambulance by 15.9% (P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was overall similar (7.7 ± 2.8 vs. 8.2 ± 3.7 days; P = not significant). The in-hospital all-cause mortality in AHF patients was 444 (5.2%) in 2019 vs. 406 (6.5%) in 2020 (P < 0.001). A total number of AHF patients with concomitant COVID-19 was 239 (3.2% of AHF patients hospitalized in 2020). The rate of in-hospital deaths in AHF patients with COVID-19 was extremely high accounting 31.4%, reaching up to 44.1% in the peak of the pandemic in November 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic led to (i) reduced hospital admissions for AHF; (ii) decreased number of self-referred AHF patients and increased number of AHF patients brought by an ambulance; and (iii) increased in-hospital mortality for AHF with very high mortality rate for concomitant AHF and COVID-19.

Pharmacotherapy of atrial fibrillation in COVID-19 patients.

The coronavirus pandemic disease 2019 (COVID-19) has changed the face of contemporary medicine. However, each and every medical practitioner must be aware of potential early and late complications of COVID-19, its impact on chronic diseases - especially ones as common as atrial fibrillation (AF) - and the possible interactions between patients' chronic medications and pharmacotherapy of COVID-19. Patients with AF due to comorbidities and, often, elderly age are assumed to be at a higher risk of a severe course of COVID-19. This expert consensus summarizes the current knowledge regarding the pharmacotherapy of AF patients in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. In general, anticoagulation principles in quarantined or asymptomatic individuals remain unchanged. Nevertheless, it is advisable to switch from vitamin K antagonists to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) whenever possible due to their consistent benefits and safety with fixed dosing and no monitoring. Additionally, in AF patients hospitalized due to mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, we recommend continuing NOAC treatment or to switching to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). On the other hand, in severely ill patients hospitalized in intensive care units, intravenous or subcutaneous dosing is preferable to oral, which is why the treatment of choice is either LMWH or unfractionated heparin. Finally, particularly in critical scenarios, the treatment strategy in COVID-19 patients with AF should be individualized based on possible interactions between anticoagulants, antiarrhythmics, antivirals, and antibiotics. In this consensus, we also discuss how to safely perform COVID-19 vaccination in anticoagulated AF patients.