Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis in the COVID-19 Era

Introduction In the COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize aerosol-generating procedures, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized at our institution as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for diagnosing infective endocarditis (IE). Methods This retrospective study evaluated the clinical utility of CMR for detecting IE among 14 patients growing typical microorganisms on blood cultures or meeting modified Duke criteria. Results 7 cases were treated for IE. In 2 cases, CMR results were notable for possible leaflet vegetations and were clinically meaningful in guiding antibiotic therapy, obtaining further imaging, and/or pursuing surgical intervention. In 2 cases, vegetations were missed on CMR but detected on TEE. In 3 cases, CMR was nondiagnostic, but patients were treated empirically. There was no difference in antibiotic duration or outcomes over 1 year. Conclusion CMR demonstrated mixed results in diagnosing valvular vegetations and guiding clinical decision making. Further prospective controlled trials of CMR vs TEE are warranted.

Fluvoxamine in Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19 Infection and the Lack of Efficacy in Reducing Rates of Hospitalization, Mechanical Ventilation, and Mortality in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent. STUDY QUESTION: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCE: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index. RESULTS: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P = 0.16, I2 = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P = 0.19, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Myocardial injury in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of studies evaluating the effect of myocardial injury on the survival of COVID-19 patients have been performed outside of the United States (U.S.). These studies have often utilized definitions of myocardial injury that are not guideline-based and thus, not applicable to the U.S. METHODS: The current study is a two-part investigation of the effect of myocardial injury on the clinical outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The first part is a retrospective analysis of 268 patients admitted to our healthcare system in Toledo, Ohio, U.S.; the second part is a systematic review and meta-analysis of all similar studies performed within the U.S. RESULTS: In our retrospective analysis, patients with myocardial injury were older (mean age 73 vs. 59 years, P 0.001), more likely to have hypertension (86% vs. 67%, P 0.005), underlying cardiovascular disease (57% vs. 24%, P 0.001), and chronic kidney disease (26% vs. 10%, P 0.004). Myocardial injury was also associated with a lower likelihood of discharge to home (35% vs. 69%, P 0.001), and a higher likelihood of death (33% vs. 10%, P 0.001), acute kidney injury (74% vs. 30%, P 0.001), and circulatory shock (33% vs. 12%, P 0.001). Our meta-analysis included 12,577 patients from 8 U.S. states and 55 hospitals who were hospitalized with COVID-19, with the finding that myocardial injury was significantly associated with increased mortality (HR 2.43, CI 2.28-3.6, P 0.0005). The prevalence of myocardial injury ranged from 9.2 to 51%, with a mean prevalence of 27.2%. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the U.S. have a high prevalence of myocardial injury, which was associated with poorer survival and outcomes.

In-hospital outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The effects of cardiovascular comorbidities on outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalized patients has not been well studied. METHODS: This is a hospital-based study evaluating the effects of CVD on the outcomes in patients admitted with COVID-19. Clinical outcomes were studied in patients with and without CVD. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients had CVD, and 193 patients had no history of CVD. Ischemic heart disease was the most common CVD (63%). When compared with patients with no CVD, those with CVD had higher mortality (29% vs 9%, p < 0.001), discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (36% vs 15%, p < 0.001), and change of code status to 'do not resuscitate' (41% vs 14%, p < 0.001). The odds for mortality were high with ischemic heart disease (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.8-7.3, p < 0.001), and systolic heart failure (OR 3.8,95% CI 1.2-12.3, p = 0.02). Patients in the CVD group were more likely to have incident atrial fibrillation (22% vs 3%, p < 0.001), type 2 Mi (17% vs 6%, p = 0.002), high BNP (57% vs 14%, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (64% vs 29%, p < 0.001), and any type of circulatory shock (27% vs 12%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: CVD is associated with increased mortality, myocardial injury, arrhythmias, and discharges to an SNF.

Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of 217 COVID-19 Patients in Northwest Ohio, United States.

Background There is limited data on the clinical characteristics and predictors of mortality of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in North West Ohio. We performed a retrospective review of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the ProMedica Health System in Northwest Ohio from March 25 to June 16, 2020. The study aims to identify epidemiological, clinical characteristics, and predictors of Mortality of COVID-19 patients in Northwest Ohio. Methods This study was conducted on 217 COVID-19 patients admitted to ProMedica Health System Hospitals in Northwest Ohio from March 25 to June 16, 2020. We collected data, including clinical signs, symptoms, and outcomes of the COVID-19 patients. We compared clinical signs and symptoms along with comorbidities of survivors and non-survivors. Results Of the 217 patients included in the study, the mean age of the population was 63.13 (SD 17.8), of which 194 (89.4%, mean age 61.7 years) survived while 23 (10.6%, mean age 74.6 years) died. Among them, 53% were females and 47% male. Common presenting symptoms were chest pain (91.71%), shortness of breath (79.7%), cough (71%), and fever (64%). Mortality was associated with age greater than 63 (p-value 0.0052) and hypertension (p-value: 0.0058) with marginal significance with gender (p-value: 0.0642), chest pain (p-value: 0.0944), and history of cancer (p-value: 0.0944). Conclusions Advanced age and hypertension (HTN) are independent predictors for increased mortality. History of cancer and chest pain are associated with increased mortality with marginal significance. Awareness among physicians about predictors of mortality is essential in dealing with COVID-19 patients. It is essential to educate the public about preventative strategies such as wearing masks to decrease mortality and morbidity from this pandemic.

Predictors of mortality in 217 COVID-19 patients in Northwest Ohio, United States: A retrospective study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. This study aims to identify specific lab markers, complications, and treatments that may be associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. This study is retrospective in nature; it included 217 COVID-19 positive patients who were admitted to a ProMedica Health System hospital in Northwest Ohio, United States, between March 25 and June 16, 2020. We collected various laboratory values, complications, and treatment courses. T test and χ2 analyses were used to predict mortality. COVID-19 test was confirmed via polymerase chain reaction. Of 217 patients included in the study, the mean age of the population was 63.13 (SD, 17.8), of which 194 (89.4%, mean age 61.7 years) survived while 23 (10.6%, mean age 74.6 years) died. Among them, 53% were females and 47% male. Laboratory values that were associated with mortality were low hemoglobin (p = .0046), elevated INR (p = .0005), low platelets (p = .0246) and elevated procalcitonin (p = .0472). Marginally significant laboratory values included elevated troponin (p = .0661), and elevated creatinine (p = .0741). Treatment with either antibiotic, antifungals, antivirals, blood transfusion, steroids, and intubation were all statistically significant for mortality. COVID-19 related complications with either ARDS, myocarditis, elevated INR, septic shock, or age greater than 63 were significant predictors of mortality. Low hemoglobin, elevated INR, Low platelet, elevated procalcitonin, treated with either antibiotic, antifungal, antiviral, blood transfusion, steroids, and intubation are associated with high mortality related to COVID-19 infection. Healthcare professionals must be aware of these predictors.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and QTc prolongation.

INTRODUCTION: The cause-and-effect relationship of QTc prolongation in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has not been studied well. OBJECTIVE: We attempt to better understand the relationship of QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients in this study. METHODS: This is a retrospective, hospital-based, observational study. All patients with normal baseline QTc interval who were hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection at two hospitals in Ohio, USA were included in this study. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients had QTc prolongation, and 210 patients continued to have normal QTc during hospitalization. The baseline QTc intervals were comparable in the two groups. Patients with QTc prolongation were older (mean age 67 vs. 60, P 0.003), more likely to have underlying cardiovascular disease (48% versus 26%, P 0.001), ischemic heart disease (29% versus 17%, P 0.026), congestive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (16% versus 8%, P 0.042), chronic kidney disease (23% versus 10%, P 0.005), and end-stage renal disease (12% versus 1%, P < 0.001). Patients with QTc prolongation were more likely to have received hydroxychloroquine (75% versus 59%, P 0.018), azithromycin (18% vs. 14%, P 0.034), a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (29% vs 7%, P < 0.001), more than 1 QT prolonging agents (59% vs. 32%, P < 0.001). Patients who were on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) were less likely to develop QTc prolongation (11% versus 26%, P 0.014). QTc prolongation was not associated with increased ventricular arrhythmias or mortality. CONCLUSION: Older age, ESRD, underlying cardiovascular disease, potential virus mediated cardiac injury, and drugs like hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin, contribute to QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients. The role of ACEi in preventing QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients needs to be studied further.

COVID-19, Modern Pandemic: A Systematic Review From Front-Line Health Care Providers' Perspective.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused infection in 168,000 cases worldwide in about 148 countries and killed more than 6,610 people around the world as of March 16, 2020, as per the World Health Organization (WHO). Compared to severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, there is the rapid transmission, long incubation period, and disease containment is becoming extremely difficult. The main aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive clinical summary of all the available data from high-quality research articles relevant to the epidemiology, demographics, trends in hospitalization and outcomes, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnostic methods and treatment methods of COVID-19, thus increasing awareness in health care providers. We also discussed various preventive measures to combat COVID-19 effectively. A systematic and protocol-driven approach is needed to contain this disease, which was declared as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, by the WHO.