Fulminant Myocarditis and Cardiogenic Shock Following COVID-19 Infection Versus COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Literature Review

Background: Myocarditis, diagnosed by symptoms and troponin elevation, has been well-described with COVID-19 infection, as well as shortly after COVID-19 vaccination. The literature has characterized the outcomes of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection and vaccination, but clinicopathologic, hemodynamic, and pathologic features following fulminant myocarditis have not been well-characterized. We aimed to compare clinical and pathological features of fulminant myocarditis requiring hemodynamic support with vasopressors/inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), in these two conditions. Methods: We analyzed the literature on fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock associated with COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and systematically reviewed all cases and case series where individual patient data were presented. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for "COVID”, "COVID-19”, and "coronavirus” in combination with "vaccine”, "fulminant myocarditis”, "acute heart failure”, and "cardiogenic shock”. The Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and the χ2 statistic was used for categorical variables. For non-normal data distributions, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used for statistical comparisons. Results: We identified 73 cases and 27 cases of fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection (COVID-19 FM) and COVID-19 vaccination (COVID-19 vaccine FM), respectively. Fever, shortness of breath, and chest pain were common presentations, but shortness of breath and pulmonary infiltrates were more often present in COVID-19 FM. Tachycardia, hypotension, leukocytosis, and lactic acidosis were seen in both cohorts, but patients with COVID-19 FM were more tachycardic and hypotensive. Histologically, lymphocytic myocarditis dominated both subsets, with some cases of eosinophilic myocarditis in both cohorts. Cellular necrosis was seen in 44.0% and 47.8% of COVID-19 FM and COVID-19 vaccine FM, respectively. Vasopressors and inotropes were used in 69.9% of COVID-19 FM and in 63.0% of the COVID-19 vaccine FM. Cardiac arrest was observed more in COVID-19 FM (p = 0.008). Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for cardiogenic shock was also used more commonly in the COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis group (p = 0.0293). Reported mortality was similar (27.7%) and 27.8%, respectively) but was likely worse for COVID-19 FM as the outcome was still unknown in 11% of cases. Conclusions: In the first series to retrospectively assess fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination, we found that both conditions had a similarly high mortality rate, while COVID-19 FM had a more malignant course with more symptoms on presentation, more profound hemodynamic decompensation (higher heart rate, lower blood pressure), more cardiac arrests, and higher temporary MCS requirements including VA-ECMO. In terms of pathology, there was no difference in most biopsies/autopsies that demonstrated lymphocytic infiltrates and some eosinophilic or mixed infiltrates. There was no predominance of young males in COVID-19 vaccine FM cases, with male patients representing only 40.9% of the cohort.

Fulminant Myocarditis and Cardiogenic Shock Following COVID-19 Infection Versus COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis, diagnosed by symptoms and troponin elevation, has been well-described with COVID-19 infection, as well as shortly after COVID-19 vaccination. The literature has characterized the outcomes of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection and vaccination, but clinicopathologic, hemodynamic, and pathologic features following fulminant myocarditis have not been well-characterized. We aimed to compare clinical and pathological features of fulminant myocarditis requiring hemodynamic support with vasopressors/inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), in these two conditions. METHODS: We analyzed the literature on fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock associated with COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and systematically reviewed all cases and case series where individual patient data were presented. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for "COVID", "COVID-19", and "coronavirus" in combination with "vaccine", "fulminant myocarditis", "acute heart failure", and "cardiogenic shock". The Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and the χ2 statistic was used for categorical variables. For non-normal data distributions, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 73 cases and 27 cases of fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection (COVID-19 FM) and COVID-19 vaccination (COVID-19 vaccine FM), respectively. Fever, shortness of breath, and chest pain were common presentations, but shortness of breath and pulmonary infiltrates were more often present in COVID-19 FM. Tachycardia, hypotension, leukocytosis, and lactic acidosis were seen in both cohorts, but patients with COVID-19 FM were more tachycardic and hypotensive. Histologically, lymphocytic myocarditis dominated both subsets, with some cases of eosinophilic myocarditis in both cohorts. Cellular necrosis was seen in 44.0% and 47.8% of COVID-19 FM and COVID-19 vaccine FM, respectively. Vasopressors and inotropes were used in 69.9% of COVID-19 FM and in 63.0% of the COVID-19 vaccine FM. Cardiac arrest was observed more in COVID-19 FM (p = 0.008). Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for cardiogenic shock was also used more commonly in the COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis group (p = 0.0293). Reported mortality was similar (27.7%) and 27.8%, respectively) but was likely worse for COVID-19 FM as the outcome was still unknown in 11% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the first series to retrospectively assess fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination, we found that both conditions had a similarly high mortality rate, while COVID-19 FM had a more malignant course with more symptoms on presentation, more profound hemodynamic decompensation (higher heart rate, lower blood pressure), more cardiac arrests, and higher temporary MCS requirements including VA-ECMO. In terms of pathology, there was no difference in most biopsies/autopsies that demonstrated lymphocytic infiltrates and some eosinophilic or mixed infiltrates. There was no predominance of young males in COVID-19 vaccine FM cases, with male patients representing only 40.9% of the cohort.

Beyond enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS): Evolving minimally invasive colectomy from multi-day admissions to same-day discharge.

INTRODUCTION: Early discharge is increasingly important in the resource-limited COVID era. Some groups have reported early experiences with same day discharge (SDD) after colectomy. We implemented a routine SDD protocol and report the evolution in our program's outcomes. METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of robotic colorectal surgeries from 2016 to 2022. Colectomies were analyzed as a sub-group and stratified by year. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 535 cases, of which 483 were colectomies. Annual case volume increased from 58 to 180 cases (p < 0.001). Operative console time concordantly decreased by 33% (p < 0.001). Average length of stay decreased from five to one days. By 2022, 58% of colectomies were selectively discharged on the same day of surgery. Complication and readmission rates remained constant. CONCLUSIONS: SDD is feasible and safe in selected patients. We illustrate the practical evolution of a surgical practice toward routine SDD, and discuss the factors we found critical to this transition.

Delving into Data Science Methods in Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic.

The circulation of myriad of information from diverse digital platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic caused the unprecedented infodemic. Along with the increased case numbers, the shared information accelerated exponentially, especially via social media, and a large proportion of the daily distributed information was blended with myth, rumors, pseudoscience, or modified facts. Uncovering viral mis- and disinformation narratives and information voids is essential to a swift and effective response on delivering public health information and policy by the governments during a public health emergency. Although many studies have examined how information was circulated and shared during the COVID-19 pandemic era, large gaps in literature exist as to how effectively to track, describe, and answer it. In this panel, the panelists propose and discuss data science methods to analyze the COVID-19 infodemic. We hope our panel contribute to exploring more effective and applicable data science methods to investigate infodemic in crises.

Unifying telescope and microscope: A multi-lens framework with open data for modeling emerging events

Open data is becoming ubiquitous as governments, companies, and even individuals have the option to offer more or less unrestricted access to their non-sensitive data. The benefits of open data, such as accessibility and transparency, have motivated and enabled a large number of research studies and applications in both academia and industry. However, each open data only offers a single perspective, and its potential inherent limitations (e.g., demographic biases) may lead to poor decisions and misjudgments. This paper discusses how to create and use multiple digital lenses empowered by open data, including census data (macro lens), search logs (meso lens), and social data (micro lens), to investigate general real-world events. To reveal the unique angles and perspectives brought by each open lens, we summarize and compare the underpinning open data from eleven dimensions, such as utility, data volume, dynamic variability, and demographic fairness. Then, we propose an easy-to-use and generalized open data driven framework, which automatically retrieves multi-source data, extracts features, and trains machine learning models for the event specified by answering what, when, and where questions. With low labor efforts, the framework’s generalization and automation capabilities guarantee an instant investigation of general events and phenomena, such as disasters, sports events, and political activities. We also conduct two case studies, i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic and Great American Eclipse (see Appendix), to demonstrate its feasibility and effectiveness at different time granularities.

The Influence of Universal Face Mask Use on Endophthalmitis Risk after Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

PURPOSE: Routine use of face masks for patients and physicians during intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections has increased with the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This study evaluates the impact of universal face mask use on rates and outcomes of post-injection endophthalmitis (PIE). DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, comparative cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from October 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020, at 12 centers. METHODS: Cases were divided into a "no face mask" group if no face masks were worn by the physician or patient during intravitreal injections or a "universal face mask" group if face masks were worn by the physician, ancillary staff, and patient during intravitreal injections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of endophthalmitis, microbial spectrum, and visual acuity (VA). RESULTS: Of 505 968 intravitreal injections administered in 110 547 eyes, 85 of 294 514 (0.0289%; 1 in 3464 injections) cases of presumed endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group, and 45 of 211 454 (0.0213%; 1 in 4699) cases occurred in the "universal face mask" group (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-1.18; P = 0.097). In the "no face mask" group, there were 27 cases (0.0092%; 1 in 10 908 injections) of culture-positive endophthalmitis compared with 9 cases (0.004%; 1 in 23 494) in the "universal face mask" group (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.99; P = 0.041). Three cases of oral flora-associated endophthalmitis occurred in the "no face mask" group (0.001%; 1 in 98 171 injections) compared with 1 (0.0005%; 1 in 211 454) in the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.645). Patients presented a mean (range) 4.9 (1-30) days after the causative injection, and mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) VA at endophthalmitis presentation was 2.04 (~20/2200) for "no face mask" group compared with 1.65 (~20/900) for the "universal face mask" group (P = 0.022), although no difference was observed 3 months after treatment (P = 0.764). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multicenter, retrospective study, physician and patient face mask use during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections did not alter the risk of presumed acute-onset bacterial endophthalmitis, but there was a reduced rate of culture-positive endophthalmitis. Three months after presentation, there was no difference in VA between the groups.

Assessment of the Association of COPD and Asthma with In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with COVID-19. A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis.

Together, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma account for the most common non-infectious respiratory pathologies. Conflicting preliminary studies have shown varied effect for COPD and asthma as prognostic factors for mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to explore the association of COPD and asthma with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 by systematically reviewing and synthesizing with a meta-analysis the available observational studies. MEDLINE, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were reviewed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used, and I-square was utilized to assess for heterogeneity. In-hospital mortality was defined as the primary endpoint. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. Thirty studies with 21,309 patients were included in this meta-analysis (1465 with COPD and 633 with asthma). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with COPD had higher risk of death compared to those without COPD (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.79-2.93; I2 59.6%). No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen in patients with and without asthma (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68-1.10; I2 0.0%). The likelihood of death was significantly higher in patients with COPD that were hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to patients without COPD. Further studies are needed to assess whether this association is independent or not. No significant difference was demonstrated in COVID-19-related mortality between patients with and without asthma.

Does CT help in reducing RT-PCR false negative rate for COVID-19?

BACKGROUND: Early detection is the key to contain the ongoing pandemic. The current gold standard to detect SARS CoV2 is RT-PCR. However, it has a high false negative rate and long turnaround time. PURPOSE: In view of the high sensitivity of CT in detection of lower respiratory tract pathologies, a study of 2581 patients comparing RT-PCR status with CT findings was undertaken to see if it augments the diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi centre prospective study of consecutive cases was conducted. All CT studies suggestive of COVID 19 pneumonia were collated and evaluated independently by three Radiologists to confirm the imaging diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. The RT-PCR values were retrospectively obtained, based on the RT-PCR values, CT studies were categorised into three subgroups, positive, negative and unknown. CT features from all three groups were compared to evaluate any communality or discordance. RESULTS: Out of the 2581 patients with positive CT findings for COVID pneumonia, 825 were females and 1,756 were males in a wide age group of 28-90 years. Predominant CT features observed in all the subgroups were Ground glass densities 94.8%, in mixed distribution (peripheral and central) (59.12%), posterior segments in 92% and multilobar involvement in 70.9%. The CT features across the three subgroups were statistically significant with a P value <0.001. CONCLUSION: There was a communality of CT findings regardless of RT-PCR status. In a pandemic setting ground glass densities in a subpleural, posterior and basal distribution are indicative of COVID 19. Thus CT chest in conjunction to RT PCR augments the diagnosis of COVID 19 pneumonia; utilization of CT chest may just be the missing link in closing this pandemic.

HRCT chest in COVID-19 patients: An initial experience from a private imaging center in western India.

The COVID-19 pandemic began in late December in 2019 and has now reached to 216 countries with 1,08,42,028 confirmed cases and 5,21,277 deaths according to the WHO reports and 6,49,666 confirmed cases in india alone with 18,679 deaths (as on 04th july 2020). RT-PCR has been considered the standard test for diagnosis of COVID 19. However, there has been reported a high false negative rate. This high false negative rate increases the risk of further transmission as well as delays the timely management of suspected cases. We have conducted HRCT chest of various (200 patient case study) proven and suspected cases of COVID-19 infection in the months of April, May and June 2020. Out of 200 scanned patients with clinical complains and suspicion, positive HRCT chest findings were seen in 196 patients, showing clinical-radiological correlation and an accuracy of 98%. The sensitivity of chest CT in suggesting COVID-19 was 98.6% (146/148patients) based on positive RT-PCR results. In patients with negative RT-PCR results and high clinical suspicion, 90% (18/20) had positive chest CT findings. HRCT chest is very sensitive and accurate in picking up lung parenchymal abnormalities in laboratory negative RT-PCR cases with high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection and also in all symptomatic patients where RT-PCR was not done. HRCT can also be very sensitive, cost effective and time effective in screening patients with high clinical suspicion. HRCT scores over RT-PCR in giving immediate results, assessing severity of disease and prediction of prognosis. We suggest HRCT chest for detection of early parenchymal abnormalities, assessing severity of disease in all patients with clinical symptoms and suspicion of COVID infection irrespective of laboratory RT-PCR status.

Factors associated with increased mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has significantly impacted global health. So far, the evidence regarding the risk factors that predict the outcomes of COVID-19 patients is limited. In this study, we identified several risk factors that are associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records of the patients admitted with an initial diagnosis of COVID-19. We extracted several patient variables (including demographics, lab results, and pre-existing conditions) and examined for their association with increased mortality. RESULTS: Of the 487 people included in the study, 340 survived and 147 expired. Significant differences existed in demographics and underlying comorbidities between the two groups. A higher proportion of patients were age 65 and older (87.76% vs 53.24%, p < 0.001), and were predominantly male (63.27% vs 52.94%, p = 0.0351). Multivariate analysis showed five variables to be the predictors for mortality: age ≥65 [OR = 3.87, 95% CI (2.01, 7.46), p < 0.001], initial presentation with dyspnea [OR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.03, 2.82), p = 0.037], history of cardiomyopathy [OR = 3.33, 95% CI (1.07, 10.41), p < 0.038], positive initial chest imaging findings [OR = 2.24, CI (1.26, 3.97), p = 0.006], and acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR = 3.33 CI (2.10, 5.28), P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Identifying COVID-19 patients with these characteristics may help guide the management and improve mortality.

Can roflumilast become steroid-sparing alternative in the treatment of COVID-19?

According to WHO the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet to come. Despite of the exceptional measures being undertaken by regulatory agencies to expedite vaccine development, we may be several months if not years away from an effective vaccine. In such unprecedented times, the only resort nations have at their disposal is to identify and repurpose existing drugs against COVID-19 based on their known clinical or pharmacological profile which can provide direct or corroborative evidence of favorable benefit: risk in the management of COVID-19. Immune-mediated inflammation remains the hallmark of severe complications related to COVID-19 and while corticosteroids have shown preliminary evidence of benefit, they can act like a double-edged sword for majority of COVID-19 patients. Therefore, there is a need to identify 'non-steroid' potent and safe anti-inflammatory agents for use in therapeutic armamentarium against COVID-19. This article makes a case for one such existing drug, roflumilast, that can emerge as a steroid-sparing alternative against COVID-19.