Arrhythmias and electrocardiographic findings in Coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) primarily causes lung infection, but recent studies have shown that cardiac involvement is associated with a worse prognosis. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias detected by the electrocardiogram and their relationships with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed and Google were searched for studies that reported on cardiac arrhythmias and/or examined the relationship between arrhythmias and adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty studies with 12,713 participants were included in the systematic review, and 28 studies (n = 12,499) in the meta-analysis. The mean age was 61.3 ± 16.8 years; 39.3% were female. In 25 studies with 7578 patients, the overall prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4%-12.3%). The most common arrhythmias documented during hospitalization were supraventricular arrhythmias (6.2%, 95% CI: 4.4%-8.1%) followed by ventricular arrhythmias (2.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-3.1%). The incidence of cardiac arrhythmias was higher among critically ill patients (relative risk [RR]: 12.1, 95% CI: 8.5-17.3) and among non-survivors (RR: 3.8, 95%, CI: 1.7-8.7). Eight studies reported changes in the QT interval. The prevalence of QTc > 500 ms was 12.3% (95% CI: 6.9%-17.8%). ST-segment deviation was reported in eight studies, with a pooled estimate of 8.7% (95% CI: 7.3% to 10.0%). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that QTc prolongation, ST-segment deviation, and various other cardiac arrhythmias were observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The presence of cardiac arrhythmias was associated with a worse prognosis.

Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions by applying a global introspection method in a high complexity hospital.

Background: Causality assessment of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an essential approach in pharmacovigilance. The World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC) system has been considered one of the most adequate method for establishing causal relationship in hospitalized patients. Objective: To describe the causality of potential ADRs in hospitalized patients assessed by the WHO-UMC system and by different healthcare professionals. Methods: Three healthcare professionals, with different backgrounds, acted as judges to adjudicate the causality categories for potential ADRs according to WHO-UMC system, in a Brazilian high complexity hospital. Judges' agreement was evaluated by using Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa coefficients. Results: Ninety potential ADRs identified in 300 participants were adjudicated by each judge, comprising a total of 270 assessments. Most potential ADRs were classified as probable or possible (77.8%). Fleiss´ kappa revealed slight concordance among judges (k = 0.096;CI:95%;0.01-0.18). Conclusions: Diverse backgrounds may have influenced the results for causality assessment of ADRs by employing the WHO-UMC system. Despite the slight concordance found for the method, this result suggests potential opportunity to enrich the ADRs management by engaging multiprofessional teams in the process. Further studies should be considered to investigate the performance of methods for ADRs assessment in hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries.