Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 34(6): 1386-1394, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2322295

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome (BrS) has a dynamic ECG pattern that might be revealed by certain conditions such as fever. We evaluated the incidence and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination among BrS patients carriers of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients were carriers of devices with remote monitoring follow-up. We recorded VAs 6 months before COVID-19 infection or vaccination, during infection, at each vaccination, and up to 6-month post-COVID-19 or 1 month after the last vaccination. In ICD carriers, we documented any device intervention. RESULTS: We included 326 patients, 202 with an ICD and 124 with an ILR. One hundred and nine patients (33.4%) had COVID-19, 55% of whom developed fever. Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection was 2.76%. After infection, we recorded only two ventricular tachycardias (VTs). After the first, second, and third vaccines, the incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was 1.5%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The incidence of VT was 1% after the second dose. Six-month post-COVID-19 healing or 1 month after the last vaccine, we documented NSVT in 3.4%, VT in 0.5%, and ventricular fibrillation in 0.5% of patients. Overall, one patient received anti-tachycardia pacing and one a shock. ILR carriers had no VAs. No differences were found in VT before and after infection and before and after each vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: From this large multicenter study conducted in BrS patients, followed by remote monitoring, the overall incidence of sustained VAs after COVID-19 infection and vaccination is relatively low.


Subject(s)
Brugada Syndrome , COVID-19 , Defibrillators, Implantable , Tachycardia, Ventricular , Humans , Brugada Syndrome/diagnosis , Brugada Syndrome/epidemiology , Brugada Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Incidence , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosis , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Tachycardia, Ventricular/diagnosis , Tachycardia, Ventricular/epidemiology , Tachycardia, Ventricular/therapy , Registries , Vaccination , Follow-Up Studies
2.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol ; 2023 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2317340

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation by cryoablation (PVI-C) is a standard therapy for the treatment of patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). AF symptoms are highly subjective; however, they are important outcomes for the patient. The aim is to describe the use and impact of a web-based App to collect AF-related symptoms in a population of patients who underwent PVI-C in seven Italian centers. METHODS: A patient App to collect AF-related symptoms and general health status was proposed to all patients who underwent an index PVI-C. Patients were divided into two groups according to the utilization of the App or the non-usage. RESULTS: Out of 865 patients, 353 (41%) subjects composed the App group, and 512 (59%) composed the No-App group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts except for age, sex, type of AF, and body mass index. During a mean follow-up of 7.9±13.8 months, AF recurrence was found in 57/865 (7%) subjects with an annual rate of 7.36% (95% CI:5.67-9.55%) in the No-App versus 10.99% (95% CI:9.67-12.48%) in the App group, p=0.007. In total, 14,458 diaries were sent by the 353 subjects in the App group and 77.1% reported a good health status and no symptoms. In only 518 diaries (3.6%), the patients reported a bad health status, and bad health status was an independent parameter of AF recurrence during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a web App to record AF-related symptoms was feasible and effective. Additionally, a bad health status reporting in the App was associated with AF recurrence during follow-up.

3.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) ; 23(1): 22-27, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430637

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has been recently associated with lower hospitalization rates for acute coronary syndromes. Aim of the study was to investigate whether a similar behaviour is observed in admissions for urgent pacemaker implant. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1315 patients from 18 hospitals in Northern Italy with a high number of COVID-19 cases. Hospitalization rates for urgent pacemaker implant were compared between the following periods: 20 February to 20 April 2020 (case period); from 1 January to 19 February 2020 (intra-year control period); from 20 February to 20 April 2019 (inter-year control period). RESULTS: The incidence rate of urgent implants was 5.0/day in the case period, 6.0/day in the intra-year control period and 5.8/day in the inter-year control period. Incidence rate in the case period was significantly lower than both the intra-year [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = 0.040] and inter-year control periods (IRR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.95, P = 0.012); this reduction was highest after the national lockdown (IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.91, P = 0.009). The prevalence of residents in rural areas undergoing urgent pacemaker implant was lower in the case period (36%) than in both the intra-year (47%, P = 0.03) and inter-year control periods (51%, P = 0.002). Elective pacemaker implants also decreased in the case period, with the incidence rate here being 3.5/day vs. 6.4/day in the intra-year (-45%) and 6.9/day in the inter-year period (-49%). CONCLUSION: Despite severe clinical patterns, the COVID-19 outbreak has negatively affected the population presentation to Emergency Departments for bradyarrhythmias requiring urgent pacemaker implant in Northern Italy. This mainly occurred after the national lockdown and concerned patients living in rural areas.


Subject(s)
Bradycardia/epidemiology , Bradycardia/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Emergencies/epidemiology , Pacemaker, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Retrospective Studies
4.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 87(3): 325-333, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1128285

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the early stages of COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxemia has been described in absence of dyspnea ("silent" or "happy" hypoxemia). Our aim was to report its prevalence and outcome in a series of hypoxemic patients upon Emergency Department admission. METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study we enrolled a study population consisting of 213 COVID-19 patients with PaO2/FiO2 ratio <300 mmHg at hospital admission. Two groups (silent and dyspneic hypoxemia) were defined. Symptoms, blood gas analysis, chest X-ray (CXR) severity, need for intensive care and outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Silent hypoxemic patients (68-31.9%) compared to the dyspneic hypoxemic patients (145-68.1%) showed greater frequency of extra respiratory symptoms (myalgia, diarrhea and nausea) and lower plasmatic LDH. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 225±68 mmHg and 192±78 mmHg in silent and dyspneic hypoxemia respectively (P=0.002). Eighteen percent of the patients with PaO2/FiO2 from 50 to 150 mmHg presented silent hypoxemia. Silent and dyspneic hypoxemic patients had similar PaCO2 (34.2±6.8 mmHg vs. 33.5±5.7 mmHg, P=0.47) but different respiratory rates (24.6±5.9 bpm vs. 28.6±11.3 bpm respectively, P=0.002). Even when CXR was severely abnormal, 25% of the population was silent hypoxemic. Twenty-six point five percent and 38.6% of silent and dyspneic patients were admitted to the ICU respectively (P=0.082). Mortality rate was 17.6% and 29.7% (log-rank P=0.083) in silent and dyspneic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Silent hypoxemia is remarkably present in COVID-19. The presence of dyspnea is associated with a more severe clinical condition.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/epidemiology , Hypoxia/etiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Dyspnea/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies
5.
Europace ; 22(12): 1855-1863, 2020 12 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059434

ABSTRACT

AIMS: The aim of the study was to describe ECG modifications and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients undergoing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in different clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: COVID-19 patients at seven institutions receiving HCQ therapy from whom a baseline and at least one ECG at 48+ h were available were enrolled in the study. QT/QTc prolongation, QT-associated and QT-independent arrhythmic events, arrhythmic mortality, and overall mortality during HCQ therapy were assessed. A total of 649 COVID-19 patients (61.9 ± 18.7 years, 46.1% males) were enrolled. HCQ therapy was administrated as a home therapy regimen in 126 (19.4%) patients, and as an in-hospital-treatment to 495 (76.3%) hospitalized and 28 (4.3%) intensive care unit (ICU) patients. At 36-72 and at 96+ h after the first HCQ dose, 358 and 404 ECGs were obtained, respectively. A significant QT/QTc interval prolongation was observed (P < 0.001), but the magnitude of the increase was modest [+13 (9-16) ms]. Baseline QT/QTc length and presence of fever (P = 0.001) at admission represented the most important determinants of QT/QTc prolongation. No arrhythmic-related deaths were reported. The overall major ventricular arrhythmia rate was low (1.1%), with all events found not to be related to QT or HCQ therapy at a centralized event evaluation. No differences in QT/QTc prolongation and QT-related arrhythmias were observed across different clinical settings, with non-QT-related arrhythmias being more common in the intensive care setting. CONCLUSION: HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths.


Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/virology , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Electrocardiography , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/chemically induced , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Curr Rev Clin Exp Pharmacol ; 16(4): 306-317, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999949

ABSTRACT

While facing potentially high morbidity from COVID-19 without known effective therapies, the off-label use of several non-specific drugs has been advocated, including re-purposed anti- viral (e.g., remdesivir or the lopinavir/ritonavir combination), biologic agents (e.g., tocilizumab), and antimalarial drugs such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in association with or without azithromycin. Data regarding the effectiveness of these drugs in treating COVID-19 has been shown in some trials and clinical settings, but further randomised controlled trials are still being carried out. One of the main concerns regarding their widespread use, however, is their possible effects on the QT interval and arrhythmogenic potential. Some of these drugs have been associated with QT prolongation and Torsades de Point, a potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia. The review aims to highlight the magnitude of this problem, to quickly refresh clinically impacting cornerstones of QT interval and TdP pathophysiology, to summarize the available evidence regarding the QT and arrhythmia impact of drugs used in different clinical settings in COVID-19 patients, and to help the physicians dealing with the knowledge needed in the everyday clinical duties in case of doubts regarding QT-induced arrhythmias in this time of emergency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
J Clin Med ; 9(10)2020 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-906272

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although studies assessing cardiovascular comorbidities and myocardial injury in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have been published, no reports focused on clinical outcomes of myocardial injury in patients with and without chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) are currently available. METHODS: In this study, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to four different institutions were screened for enrolment. Patients were divided into two groups (CCS vs. no-CCS). Association with in-hospital mortality and related predictors represented the main study outcome; myocardial injury and its predictors were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 674 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, 112 (16.6%) with an established history of CCS. Myocardial injury occurred in 43.8% patients with CCS vs. 14.4% patients without CCS, as confirmed by high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) elevation on admission or during hospitalization. The mortality rate in the CCS cohort was nearly three-fold higher. After adjusting for disease severity, myocardial injury resulted significantly associated with in-hospital mortality in the no-CCS group but not in CCS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCS and COVID-19 showed high mortality rate. Myocardial injury may be a bystander in CCS patients and COVID-19, while in patients without known history of CCS, myocardial injury has a significant role in predicting poor outcomes.

8.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol ; 31(5): 1003-1008, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-258908

ABSTRACT

In December 2019, the world started to face a new pandemic situation, the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although coronavirus disease (COVID-19) clinical manifestations are mainly respiratory, major cardiac complications are being reported. Cardiac manifestations etiology seems to be multifactorial, comprising direct viral myocardial damage, hypoxia, hypotension, enhanced inflammatory status, ACE2-receptors downregulation, drug toxicity, endogenous catecholamine adrenergic status, among others. Studies evaluating patients with COVID-19 presenting cardiac injury markers show that it is associated with poorer outcomes, and arrhythmic events are not uncommon. Besides, drugs currently used to treat the COVID-19 are known to prolong the QT interval and can have a proarrhythmic propensity. This review focus on COVID-19 cardiac and arrhythmic manifestations and, in parallel, makes an appraisal of other virus epidemics as SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and H1N1 influenza.


Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/complications , Cardiomyopathies/complications , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus , Myocarditis/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/virology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cardiomyopathies/virology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Myocarditis/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL