Medium-Term Outcomes in COVID-19.

COVID-19 causes severe illness that results in morbidity and mortality. Electrocardiographic features, including QT prolongation, have been associated with poor acute outcomes; data on the medium-term outcomes remain scarce. This study evaluated the 1-year outcomes of patients who survived the acute COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data of the 159 patients who survived the COVID-19 illness during the first wave (1 March 2020-18 May 2020) were collected. Patient demographics, laboratory findings and electrocardiography data were evaluated. Patients who subsequently died within 1-year of the index illness were compared to those who remained well. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients who had survived the index illness, 28 (17.6%) subsequently perished within 1-year. In comparison to the patients that were alive after 1-year, the deceased were older (68 vs. 83 years, p < 0.01) and equally male (60.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.68), with a similar proportion of hypertension (59.5% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.68), diabetes (25.2% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.096) and ischaemic heart disease (11.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.54). The QTc interval for the alive and deceased patients shortened by a similar degree from the illness to post-COVID (-26 ± 33.5 vs. -20.6 ± 30.04 milliseconds, p = 0.5); the post-COVID R-R interval was longer in the alive patients compared to the deceased (818.9 ± 169.3 vs. 761.1 ± 61.2 ms, p = 0.02). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age (HR1.098 [1.045-1.153], p < 0.01), diabetes (HR3.972 [1.47-10.8], p < 0.01) and the post-COVID R-R interval (HR0.993 [0.989-0.996], p < 0.01) were associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-associated mortality risk extends to the post-COVID period. The QTc does recover following the acute illness and is not associated with outcomes; the R-R interval is a predictor of 1-year mortality.

Prolonged QT predicts prognosis in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) causes severe illness and multi-organ dysfunction. An abnormal electrocardiogram is associated with poor outcome, and QT prolongation during the illness has been linked to pharmacological effects. This study sought to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 illness on the corrected QT interval (QTc). METHOD: For 293 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital via the emergency department for COVID-19 between 01/03/20 -18/05/20, demographic data, laboratory findings, admission electrocardiograph and clinical observations were compared in those who survived and those who died within 6 weeks. Hospital records were reviewed for prior electrocardiograms for comparison with those recorded on presentation with COVID-19. RESULTS: Patients who died were older than survivors (82 vs 69.8 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have cancer (22.3% vs 13.1%, p = 0.034), dementia (25.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.034) and ischemic heart disease (27.8% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001). Deceased patients exhibited higher levels of C-reactive protein (244.6 mg/L vs 146.5 mg/L, p < 0.01), troponin (1982.4 ng/L vs 413.4 ng/L, p = 0.017), with a significantly longer QTc interval (461.1 ms vs 449.3 ms, p = 0.007). Pre-COVID electrocardiograms were located for 172 patients; the QTc recorded on presentation with COVID-19 was longer than the prior measurement in both groups, but was more prolonged in the deceased group (448.4 ms vs 472.9 ms, pre-COVID vs COVID, p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed age, C-reactive protein and prolonged QTc of >455 ms (males) and >465 ms (females) (p = 0.028, HR 1.49 [1.04-2.13]), as predictors of mortality. QTc prolongation beyond these dichotomy limits was associated with increased mortality risk (p = 0.0027, HR 1.78 [1.2-2.6]). CONCLUSION: QTc prolongation occurs in COVID-19 illness and is associated with poor outcome.

Electrophysiology in the time of coronavirus: coping with the great wave.

AIMS: To chart the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity of interventional electrophysiology services in affected regions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the electrophysiology laboratory records in three affected cities: Wenzhou in China, Milan in Italy, and London in the UK. We inspected catheter lab records and interviewed electrophysiologists in each centre to gather information on the impact of the pandemic on working patterns and on the health of staff members and patients. There was a striking decline in interventional electrophysiology activity in each of the centres. The decline occurred within a week of the recognition of widespread community transmission of the virus in each region and shows a striking correlation with the national figures for new diagnoses of COVID-19 in each case. During the period of restriction, workflow dropped to <5% of normal, consisting of emergency cases only. In two of three centres, electrophysiologists were redeployed to perform emergency work outside electrophysiology. Among the centres studied, only Wenzhou has seen a recovery from the restrictions in activity. Following an intense nationwide programme of public health interventions, local transmission of COVID-19 ceased to be detectable after 18 February allowing the electrophysiology service to resume with a strict testing regime for all patients. CONCLUSION: Interventional electrophysiology is vulnerable to closure in times of great social difficulty including the COVID-19 pandemic. Intense public health intervention can permit suppression of local disease transmission allowing resumption of some normal activity with stringent precautions.