How Does COVID-19 Affect the Heart?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac consequences occur in both acute COVID-19 and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). Here, we highlight the current understanding about COVID-19 cardiac effects, based upon clinical, imaging, autopsy, and molecular studies. RECENT FINDINGS: COVID-19 cardiac effects are heterogeneous. Multiple, concurrent cardiac histopathologic findings have been detected on autopsies of COVID-19 non-survivors. Microthrombi and cardiomyocyte necrosis are commonly detected. Macrophages often infiltrate the heart at high density but without fulfilling histologic criteria for myocarditis. The high prevalences of microthrombi and inflammatory infiltrates in fatal COVID-19 raise the concern that recovered COVID-19 patients may have similar but subclinical cardiac pathology. Molecular studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection of cardiac pericytes, dysregulated immunothrombosis, and pro-inflammatory and anti-fibrinolytic responses underlie COVID-19 cardiac pathology. The extent and nature by which mild COVID-19 affects the heart is unknown. Imaging and epidemiologic studies of recovered COVID-19 patients suggest that even mild illness confers increased risks of cardiac inflammation, cardiovascular disorders, and cardiovascular death. The mechanistic details of COVID-19 cardiac pathophysiology remain under active investigation. The ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants and vast numbers of recovered COVID-19 patients portend a burgeoning global cardiovascular disease burden. Our ability to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease in the future will likely depend on comprehensive understanding of COVID-19 cardiac pathophysiologic phenotypes.

Worldwide Disparities in Recovery of Cardiac Testing 1 Year Into COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which health care systems have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic to provide necessary cardiac diagnostic services is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on cardiac testing practices, volumes and types of diagnostic services, and perceived psychological stress to health care providers worldwide. METHODS: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations from baseline in cardiovascular diagnostic care at the pandemic's onset and 1 year later. Multivariable regression was used to determine factors associated with procedure volume recovery. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted from 669 centers in 107 countries. Worldwide reduction in cardiac procedure volumes of 64% from March 2019 to April 2020 recovered by April 2021 in high- and upper middle-income countries (recovery rates of 108% and 99%) but remained depressed in lower middle- and low-income countries (46% and 30% recovery). Although stress testing was used 12% less frequently in 2021 than in 2019, coronary computed tomographic angiography was used 14% more, a trend also seen for other advanced cardiac imaging modalities (positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance; 22%-25% increases). Pandemic-related psychological stress was estimated to have affected nearly 40% of staff, impacting patient care at 78% of sites. In multivariable regression, only lower-income status and physicians' psychological stress were significant in predicting recovery of cardiac testing. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac diagnostic testing has yet to recover to prepandemic levels in lower-income countries. Worldwide, the decrease in standard stress testing is offset by greater use of advanced cardiac imaging modalities. Pandemic-related psychological stress among providers is widespread and associated with poor recovery of cardiac testing.

Mortality Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Infection Treated With Tocilizumab and Corticosteroids: A Bayesian Reanalysis of a Previous Meta-analysis.

Importance: A World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis found that tocilizumab was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, uncertainty remains concerning the magnitude of tocilizumab's benefits and whether its association with mortality benefit is similar across respiratory subgroups. Objective: To use bayesian methods to assess the magnitude of mortality benefit associated with tocilizumab and the differences between respiratory support subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A bayesian hierarchical reanalysis of the WHO meta-analysis of tocilizumab studies published in 2020 and 2021 was performed. Main results were estimated using weakly informative priors to exert little influence on the observed data. The robustness of these results was evaluated using vague and informative priors. The studies featured in the meta-analysis were randomized clinical tocilizumab trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Only patients receiving corticosteroids were included. Interventions: Usual care plus tocilizumab in comparison with usual care or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Results: Among the 5339 patients included in this analysis, most were men, with mean ages between 56 and 66 years. There were 2117 patients receiving simple oxygen only, 2505 receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and 717 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in 15 studies from multiple countries and continents. Assuming weakly informative priors, the overall odds ratios (ORs) for survival were 0.70 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.50-0.91) for patients receiving simple oxygen only, 0.81 (95% CrI, 0.63-1.03) for patients receiving NIV, and 0.89 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.22) for patients receiving IMV, respectively. The posterior probabilities of any benefit (OR <1) were notably different between patients receiving simple oxygen only (98.9%), NIV (95.5%), and IMV (75.4%). The posterior probabilities of a clinically meaningful association (absolute mortality risk difference >1%) were greater than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen only and greater than 90% in patients receiving NIV. In contrast, the posterior probability of this clinically meaningful association was only approximately 67% in patients receiving IMV. The probabilities of tocilizumab superiority in the simple oxygen only subgroup compared with the NIV and IMV subgroups were 85% and 90%, respectively. Predictive intervals highlighted that only 72.1% of future tocilizumab IMV studies would show benefit. The conclusions did not change with different prior distributions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this bayesian reanalysis of a previous meta-analysis of 15 studies of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, use of simple oxygen only and NIV was associated with a probability of a clinically meaningful mortality benefit from tocilizumab. Future research should clarify whether patients receiving IMV also benefit from tocilizumab.