Impact of time to diagnosis on the occurrence of cardiogenic shock in MIS-C post-COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: In multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), diagnostic delay could be associated with severity. This study aims to measure the time to diagnosis in MIS-C, assess its impact on the occurrence of cardiogenic shock, and specify its determinants. METHODS: A single-center prospective cohort observational study was conducted between May 2020 and July 2022 at a tertiary care hospital. Children meeting the World Health Organization MIS-C criteria were included. A long time to diagnosis was defined as six days or more. Data on time to diagnosis were collected by two independent physicians. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiogenic shock. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used for outcomes, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used for determinants. RESULTS: Totally 60 children were assessed for inclusion, and 31 were finally analyzed [52% males, median age 8.8 (5.7-10.7) years]. The median time to diagnosis was 5.3 (4.2-6.2) days. In univariable analysis, age above the median, time to diagnosis, high C-reactive protein, and high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were associated with cardiogenic shock [odds ratio (OR) 6.13 (1.02-36.9), 2.79 (1.15-6.74), 2.08 (1.05-4.12), and 1.70 (1.04-2.78), respectively]. In multivariable analysis, time to diagnosis ≥ 6 days was associated with cardiogenic shock [adjusted OR (aOR) 21.2 (1.98-227)]. Time to diagnosis ≥ 6 days had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 77% in predicting cardiogenic shock; the addition of age > 8 years and NT-proBNP at diagnosis ≥ 11,254 ng/L increased the specificity to 91%. Independent determinants of short time to diagnosis were age < 8.8 years [aHR 0.34 (0.13-0.88)], short distance to tertiary care hospital [aHR 0.27 (0.08-0.92)], and the late period of the COVID-19 pandemic [aHR 2.48 (1.05-5.85)]. CONCLUSIONS: Time to diagnosis ≥ 6 days was independently associated with cardiogenic shock in MIS-C. Early diagnosis and treatment are crucial to avoid the use of inotropes and limit morbidity, especially in older children.

Hospital Outcomes Among COVID-19 Hospitalizations With Myocarditis from the California State Inpatient Database.

Many case reports have indicated that myocarditis could be a prognostic factor for predicting morbidity and mortality among patients with COVID-19. In this study, using a large database we examined the association between myocarditis among COVID-19 hospitalizations and in-hospital mortality and other adverse hospital outcomes. The present study was a retrospective analysis of data collected in the California State Inpatient Database during 2020. All hospitalizations for COVID-19 were included in the analysis and grouped into those with and without myocarditis. The outcomes were in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, mechanical ventilation, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Propensity score matching, followed by conditional logistic regression, was performed to find the association between myocarditis and outcomes. Among 164,417 COVID-19 hospitalizations, 578 (0.4%) were with myocarditis. After propensity score matching, the rate of in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among COVID-19 hospitalizations with myocarditis (30.0% vs 17.5%, p <0.001). Survival analysis with log-rank test showed that 30-day survival rates were significantly lower among those with myocarditis (39.5% vs 46.3%, p <0.001). Conditional logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of cardiac arrest (odds ratio [OR] 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16 to 3.14), cardiogenic shock (OR 4.13, 95% CI 2.14 to 7.99), mechanical ventilation (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.47 to 4.41), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.66) were significantly higher among those with myocarditis. Myocarditis was associated with greater rates of in-hospital mortality and adverse hospital outcomes among patients with COVID-19, and early suspicion is important for prompt diagnosis and management.

Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been hypothesized to relate to inflammatory activation. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for COVID-19 across 6 centers in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, identifying patients with vs without acute HF. Acute HF was subclassified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic, based on the absence or presence of prior HF. Clinical features, biomarker profiles and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 901 admissions to an ICU due to COVID-19, 80 (8.9%) had acute HF, including 18 (2.0%) with classic cardiogenic shock (CS) and 37 (4.1%) with vasodilatory CS. The majority (n = 45) were de novo HF presentations. Compared to patients without acute HF, those with acute HF had higher cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide levels and similar inflammatory biomarkers; patients with de novo HF had the highest cardiac troponin levels. Notably, among patients critically ill with COVID-19, illness severity (median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 8 [IQR, 5-10] vs 6 [4-9]; P = 0.025) and mortality rates (43.8% vs 32.4%; P = 0.040) were modestly higher in patients with vs those without acute HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients critically ill with COVID-19, acute HF is distinguished more by biomarkers of myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress than by biomarkers of inflammation.

Impact of concomitant respiratory infections in the management and outcomes acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and impact of respiratory infections in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017), this study identified adult (≥18 years) admitted with AMI-CS complicated by respiratory infections. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality of AMI-CS admissions with and without respiratory infections, hospitalization costs, hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition. Temporal trends of prevalence, in-hospital mortality and cardiac procedures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 557,974 AMI-CS admissions, concomitant respiratory infections were identified in 84,684 (15.2%). Temporal trends revealed a relatively stable trend in prevalence of respiratory infections over the 18-year period. Admissions with respiratory infections were on average older, less likely to be female, with greater comorbidity, had significantly higher rates of NSTEMI presentation, and acute non-cardiac organ failure compared to those without respiratory infections (all p < 0.001). These admissions received lower rates of coronary angiography (66.8% vs 69.4%, p < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary interventions (44.8% vs 49.5%, p < 0.001), with higher rates of mechanical circulatory support, pulmonary artery catheterization, and invasive mechanical ventilation compared to AMI-CS admissions without respiratory infections (all p < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality was lower among AMI-CS admissions with respiratory infections (31.6% vs 38.4%, adjusted OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.57-0.59], p < 0.001). Admissions with respiratory infections had longer lengths of hospital stay (127-20 vs 63-11 days, p < 0.001), higher hospitalization costs and less frequent discharges to home (27.1% vs 44.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory infections in AMI-CS admissions were associated with higher resource utilization but lower in-hospital mortality.

Safety measures for COVID-19 do not compromise the outcomes of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a single center retrospective study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic impacting nearly 170 countries/regions and millions of patients worldwide. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still need to be treated at percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers with relevant safety measures. This retrospective study was conducted to assess the therapeutic outcomes of PCI performed under the safety measures and normal conditions. AMI patients undergoing PCI between January 24 to April 30, 2020 were performed under safety measures for COVID-19. Patients received pulmonary computed tomography (CT) and underwent PCI in negative pressure ICU. Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff and physicians worked with level III personal protection. Demographic and clinical data, such as door-to-balloon (DTB) time, operation time, complications for patients in this period (COVID-19 group) and the same period in 2019 (2019 group) were retrieved and analyzed. COVID-19 and 2019 groups had 37 and 96 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in age, gender, BMI and comorbidity between the two groups. DTB time and operation time were similar between the two groups (60.0 ± 12.39 vs 58.83 ± 12.85 min, p = 0.636; 61.46 ± 9.91 vs 62.55 ± 10.72 min, p = 0.592). Hospital stay time in COVID-19 group was significantly shorter (6.78 ± 2.14 vs 8.85 ± 2.64 days, p < 0.001). The incidences of malignant arrhythmia and Takotsubo Syndrome in COVID-19 group were higher than 2019 group significantly (16.22% vs 5.21%, p = 0.039; 10.81% vs 1.04% p = 0.008). During hospitalization and 3-month follow-up, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in the two groups were statistically similar (35.13% vs 14.58%, p = 0.094; 16.22% vs 8.33%, p = 0.184). The risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was associated with cardiogenic shock (OR, 11.53; 95% CI, 2.888-46.036; p = 0.001), malignant arrhythmias (OR, 7.176; 95% CI, 1.893-27.203; p = 0.004) and advanced age (≥ 75 years) (OR, 6.718; 95% CI, 1.738-25.964; p = 0.006). Cardiogenic shock (OR, 17.663; 95% CI, 5.5-56.762; p < 0.001) and malignant arrhythmias (OR, 4.659; 95% CI, 1.481-14.653; p = 0.008) were also associated with death of 3 months. Our analysis showed that safety measures undertaken in this hospital, including screening of COVID-19 infection and use of personal protection equipment for conducting PCI did not compromise the surgical outcome as compared with PCI under normal condition, although there were slight increases in incidence of malignant arrhythmia and Takotsubo Syndrome.

Contemporary Use of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Insights from the Multicenter RESCUE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a life-saving therapy for patients with cardiovascular collapse, but identifying patients unlikely to benefit remains a challenge. METHODS AND RESULTS: We created the RESCUE registry, a retrospective, observational registry of adult patients treated with VA-ECMO between January 2007 and June 2017 at 3 high-volume centers (Columbia University, Duke University, and Washington University) to describe short-term patient outcomes. In 723 patients treated with VA-ECMO, the most common indications for deployment were postcardiotomy shock (31%), cardiomyopathy (including acute heart failure) (26%), and myocardial infarction (17%). Patients frequently suffered in-hospital complications, including acute renal dysfunction (45%), major bleeding (41%), and infection (33%). Only 40% of patients (n = 290) survived to discharge, with a minority receiving durable cardiac support (left ventricular assist device [n = 48] or heart transplantation [n = 7]). Multivariable regression analysis identified risk factors for mortality on ECMO as older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.42) and female sex (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02) and risk factors for mortality after decannulation as higher body mass index (OR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.01-1.35) and major bleeding while on ECMO support (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.23-2.99). CONCLUSIONS: Despite contemporary care at high-volume centers, patients treated with VA-ECMO continue to have significant in-hospital morbidity and mortality. The optimization of outcomes will require refinements in patient selection and improvement of care delivery.

Coronavirus disease-19 and cardiovascular disease: A risk factor or a risk marker?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 causes the clinical syndrome of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) which has become a global pandemic resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. While the virus primarily affects the respiratory system, it also causes a wide variety of complex cardiac manifestations such as acute myopericarditis, acute coronary syndrome, congested heart failure, cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrhythmias. There are numerous proposed mechanisms of cardiac injury, including direct cellular injury, pro-inflammatory cytokine storm, myocardial oxygen-demand mismatch, and systemic inflammation causing multi-organ failure. Additionally, medications commonly used to treat COVID-19 patients have various cardiovascular side effects. We aim to provide a succinct review about the pathophysiology and cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, as well as treatment considerations and the various adaptations made to the current healthcare structure as a result of the pandemic.