Comparison of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children-Related Myocarditis, Classic Viral Myocarditis, and COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Myocarditis in Children.

Background Although rare, classic viral myocarditis in the pediatric population is a disease that carries significant morbidity and mortality. Since 2020, myocarditis has been a common component of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In 2021, myocarditis related to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was recognized as a rare adverse event. This study aims to compare classic, MIS-C, and COVID-19 vaccine-related myocarditis with regard to clinical presentation, course, and outcomes. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, we compared patients aged <21 years hospitalized at our institution with classic viral myocarditis from 2015 to 2019, MIS-C myocarditis from March 2020 to February 2021, and vaccine-related myocarditis from May 2021 to June 2021. Of 201 total participants, 43 patients had classic myocarditis, 149 had MIS-C myocarditis, and 9 had vaccine-related myocarditis. At presentation, ejection fraction was lowest for those with classic myocarditis, with ejection fraction <55% present in 58% of patients. Nearly all patients with MIS-C myocarditis (n=139, 93%) and all patients with vaccine-related myocarditis (n=9, 100%) had normal left ventricular ejection fraction at the time of discharge compared with 70% (n=30) of the classic myocarditis group (P<0.001). At 3 months after discharge, of the 21 children discharged with depressed ejection fraction, none of the 10 children with MIS-C myocarditis had residual dysfunction compared with 3 of the 11 (27%) patients in the classic myocarditis group. Conclusions Compared with classic myocarditis, those with MIS-C myocarditis had better clinical outcomes, including rapid recovery of cardiac function. Patients with vaccine-related myocarditis had prompt resolution of symptoms and improvement of cardiac function.

Impact of the COVID pandemic on quality measures in a pediatric echocardiography lab.

Background: The COVID pandemic necessitated an altered approach to transthoracic echocardiography, especially in COVID cases. Whether this has effected echocardiography lab quality is unknown. Objectives: We sought to determine whether echocardiography lab quality measures during the COVID pandemic were different from those prior to the pandemic and whether quality and comprehensiveness of echocardiograms performed during the pandemic was different between COVID and non-COVID patients. Methods: The four quality measures (diagnostic errors, appropriateness of echocardiogram, American College of Cardiology Image Quality metric and Comprehensive Exam metric in structurally normal hearts) reported quarterly in our lab were compared between two quarters during COVID (2020) and pre-COVID (2019). Each component of these metrics was also assessed in randomly selected echocardiograms in COVID patients and compared to non-COVID echocardiograms. Results: For non-COVID echocardiograms, the image quality metric did not change between 2019 and 2020 and the comprehensive exam metric improved. Diagnostic error rate did not change, and appropriateness of echocardiogram indications improved. When COVID and non-COVID echocardiograms were compared, the image quality metric and comprehensiveness exam metric were lower for COVID cases (image quality mean 21.3/23 for non-COVID, 18.6/23 for COVID, p < 0.001 and comprehensive exam mean 29.5/30 for non-COVID, 27.7/39 for COVID, p < 0.001). In particular, systemic and pulmonary veins, pulmonary arteries and aortic arch were not adequately imaged in COVID patients. For studies in which a follow-up echocardiogram was available, no new pathology was found. Conclusions: At our center, though diagnostic error rate did not change during the pandemic and the proportion of echocardiograms ordered for appropriate indications increased, imaging quality in COVID patients was compromised, especially for systemic and pulmonary veins, pulmonary arteries and arch. Though no new pathology was noted on the small number of patients who had follow-up studies, we are paying careful attention to these structures to avoid diagnostic errors going forward.

Data quality methods through remote source data verification auditing: results from the Congenital Cardiac Research Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Multicentre research databases can provide insights into healthcare processes to improve outcomes and make practice recommendations for novel approaches. Effective audits can establish a framework for reporting research efforts, ensuring accurate reporting, and spearheading quality improvement. Although a variety of data auditing models and standards exist, barriers to effective auditing including costs, regulatory requirements, travel, and design complexity must be considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Congenital Cardiac Research Collaborative conducted a virtual data training initiative and remote source data verification audit on a retrospective multicentre dataset. CCRC investigators across nine institutions were trained to extract and enter data into a robust dataset on patients with tetralogy of Fallot who required neonatal intervention. Centres provided de-identified source files for a randomised 10% patient sample audit. Key auditing variables, discrepancy types, and severity levels were analysed across two study groups, primary repair and staged repair. RESULTS: Of the total 572 study patients, data from 58 patients (31 staged repairs and 27 primary repairs) were source data verified. Amongst the 1790 variables audited, 45 discrepancies were discovered, resulting in an overall accuracy rate of 97.5%. High accuracy rates were consistent across all CCRC institutions ranging from 94.6% to 99.4% and were reported for both minor (1.5%) and major discrepancies type classifications (1.1%). CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that implementing a virtual multicentre training initiative and remote source data verification audit can identify data quality concerns and produce a reliable, high-quality dataset. Remote auditing capacity is especially important during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children: Survey of Protocols for Early Hospital Evaluation and Management.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the similarities and differences in the evaluation and treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at hospitals in the US. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from June 16 to July 16, 2020, of US children's hospitals regarding protocols for management of patients with MIS-C. Elements included characteristics of the hospital, clinical definition of MIS-C, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. We summarized key findings and compared results from centers in which >5 patients had been treated vs those in which ≤5 patients had been treated. RESULTS: In all, 40 centers of varying size and experience with MIS-C participated in this protocol survey. Overall, 21 of 40 centers required only 1 day of fever for MIS-C to be considered. In the evaluation of patients, there was often a tiered approach. Intravenous immunoglobulin was the most widely recommended medication to treat MIS-C (98% of centers). Corticosteroids were listed in 93% of protocols primarily for moderate or severe cases. Aspirin was commonly recommended for mild cases, whereas heparin or low molecular weight heparin were to be used primarily in severe cases. In severe cases, anakinra and vasopressors frequently were recommended; 39 of 40 centers recommended follow-up with cardiology. There were similar findings between centers in which >5 patients vs ≤5 patients had been managed. Supplemental materials containing hospital protocols are provided. CONCLUSIONS: There are many similarities yet key differences between hospital protocols for MIS-C. These findings can help healthcare providers learn from others regarding options for managing MIS-C.