Evaluation of cardiac injury with biomarkers and echocardiography after COVID-19 infection.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes cardiovascular damage in the acute period. Knowledge regarding cardiovascular damage after COVID-19 infection and during longer-term follow-up is currently limited. In our study, we aimed to compare cardiac and inflammatory markers and echocardiographic parameters between patients who had recovered from COVID-19 and control group. A total of 224 individuals were included, comprising 126 patients with a history of COVID-19 and 98 healthy controls. The demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP), D-dimer, haemoglobin A1C, troponin T and creatine kinase myocardial band (CK-MB) levels were compared between both groups. The mean follow-up period of the COVID-19 group was 58.39 ± 39.1 days (range:10 - 180 days post-COVID-19). Red cell distribution width (RDW), ESR, CRP, NT-ProBNP, D-dimer and troponin T values were significantly higher in the COVID-19 group compared to the control group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower in the COVID-19 group. Left ventricular diastolic diameter (LVDD) and incidence of pericardial effusion were higher in the COVID-19 group. For multivariate analysis, possible factors identified by univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine independent predictors of COVID-19. Among these factors, RDW, CRP and LVEF were independently higher in the COVID-19 group than in the control group. We conclude that although the clinical and prognostic significance of cardiac and other inflammatory markers in the acute phase of COVID-19 is known, we found that these biomarkers and echocardiography parameters can also be used in the follow-up of cardiac injury for a mid-term period post-infection.

Real-life data for major adverse cardiac events in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction prasugrel versus ticagrelor.

We aimed to evaluate the major adverse cardiac events and other clinical outcomes in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cases treated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor after percutaneous intervention (PCI). The study was a prospective comparative study into which 560 patients diagnosed with STEMI, being suitable for PCI, and prescribed with either prasugrel (n = 232) or ticagrelor (n = 328) as oral antiplatelet therapy were included. Patients were followed up for a mean of 10.9 ± 4.7 months and 11.9 ± 4.9 months for prasugrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively. The major adverse cardiac events developed in similar rates between prasugrel and ticagrelor groups (7.3% versus 7.9%, respectively, p = 0.793). Even if mortality rate was higher in ticagrelor group, the difference did not reach statistically significance (3.4% vs. 6.7%, p=0.092). Among all study population, stent thrombosis and minor bleeding was recorded only in 7 (1.2%) and 12 (2.1%) patients without significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor groups. Twenty patients (8.6%) in prasugrel group and 47 patients (14.3%) in ticagrelor group discontinued treatment (p = 0.023). In ticagrelor group, 12 patients discontinued treatment due to dyspnea, but none in prasugrel group (p = 0.001). Prasugrel and ticagrelor have similar effects on major adverse cardiac events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, but prasugrel seems more tolerated and less discontinued than ticagrelor.