Electrocardiographic markers of increased risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia

BackgroundLittle is known about the role of ECG markers of increased risk of sudden cardiac death during the acute period of coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID‐19) pneumonia.ObjectivesTo evaluate ECG markers of sudden cardiac death on admission, including the index of cardiac electrophysiological balance (iCEB) (QTc/QRS) and transmural dispersion of repolarization (TDR) (T from peak to end (Tp‐e) interval and Tp‐e/QTc), in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia.Patients and methodsThis cross‐sectional study included 63 patients with newly diagnosed COVID‐19 pneumonia who presented to the outpatient clinic or admitted to the respiratory care unit between August 20 and September 15, 2020. Forty‐six persons matched for sex and age were selected from data collected before COVID‐19 pandemic.ResultsQRS and QTc showed a significant prolongation in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia compared to the controls (87 vs. 78, p < .00, and 429 versus. 400, p < .00, respectively). After categorization of patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia into 3 groups according to the severity of pneumonia as mild‐moderate, severe, and critical groups, a decreased values of QRS were observed in the critical COVID‐19 pneumonia group compared to severe and mild‐moderate COVID‐19 pneumonia groups (p = .04) while increased values of QTc and iCEB(QTc/QRS) were noted in critical COVID‐19 pneumonia group compared to other 2 groups(p < .00).ConclusionsPatients with COVID‐19 pneumonia showed significant changes in repolarization and conduction parameters compared to controls. Patients with mild to severe COVID‐19 pneumonia may be at low risk for torsades de pointes development.     

Symptoms and recovery among adult outpatients with and without COVID‐19 at 11 healthcare facilities—July 2020, United States

BackgroundSymptoms of mild COVID‐19 illness are non‐specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID‐19 are not well understood.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health‐related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health‐related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID‐19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAmong 320 participants included, 157 were COVID‐19 cases and 163 were SARS‐CoV‐2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID‐19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6‐83.1). COVID‐19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P < .001). Cases reported significantly more days of poor physical health during the past 14 days than controls (P < .01).ConclusionsDifferentiating COVID‐19 from other acute illnesses will require widespread diagnostic testing, especially during influenza seasons. Persistent COVID‐19‐related symptoms may negatively affect quality of life, even among those initially presenting with mild illness.     

Impact of the “atherosclerotic pabulum” on in‐hospital mortality for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Is calcium score able to identify at‐risk patients?

BackgroundAlthough the primary cause of death in COVID‐19 infection is respiratory failure, there is evidence that cardiac manifestations may contribute to overall mortality and can even be the primary cause of death. More importantly, it is recognized that COVID‐19 is associated with a high incidence of thrombotic complications.HypothesisEvaluate if the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score was useful to predict in‐hospital (in‐H) mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Secondary end‐points were needed for mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit admission.MethodsTwo‐hundred eighty‐four patients (63, 25 years, 67% male) with proven severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection who had a noncontrast chest computed tomography were analyzed for CAC score. Clinical and radiological data were retrieved.ResultsPatients with CAC had a higher inflammatory burden at admission (d‐dimer, p = .002; C‐reactive protein, p = .002; procalcitonin, p = .016) and a higher high‐sensitive cardiac troponin I (HScTnI, p = <.001) at admission and at peak. While there was no association with presence of lung consolidation and ground‐glass opacities, patients with CAC had higher incidence of bilateral infiltration (p = .043) and higher in‐H mortality (p = .048). On the other side, peak HScTnI >200 ng/dl was a better determinant of all outcomes in both univariate (p = <.001) and multivariate analysis (p = <.001).ConclusionThe main finding of our research is that CAC was positively related to in‐H mortality, but it did not completely identify all the population at risk of events in the setting of COVID‐19 patients. This raises the possibility that other factors, including the presence of soft, unstable plaques, may have a role in adverse outcomes in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.     

Association of colchicine use for acute gout with clinical outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure

BackgroundGout is a common comorbidity in heart failure (HF) patients and is frequently associated with acute exacerbations during treatment for decompensated HF. Although colchicine is often used to manage acute gout in HF patients, its impact on clinical outcomes when used during acute decompensated HF is unknown.MethodsThis was a single center, retrospective study of hospitalized patients treated for an acute HF exacerbation with and without acute gout flare between March 2011 and December 2020. We assessed clinical outcomes in patients treated with colchicine for a gout flare compared to those who did not experience a gout flare or receive colchicine. The primary outcome was in‐hospital all‐cause mortality.ResultsAmong 1047 patient encounters for acute HF during the study period, there were 237 encounters (22.7%) where the patient also received colchicine for acute gout during admission. In‐hospital all‐cause mortality was significantly reduced in the colchicine group compared with the control group (2.1% vs. 6.5%, p = .009). The colchicine group had increased length of stay (9.93 vs. 7.96 days, p < .001) but no significant difference in 30‐day readmissions (21.5% vs. 19.5%, p = .495). In a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, inpatient colchicine use was associated with improved survival to discharge (hazards ratio [HR] 0.163, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.051−0.525, p = .002) and a reduced rate of in‐hospital CV mortality (HR 0.184, 95% CI 0.044−0.770, p = .021).ConclusionAmong patients with a HF exacerbation, treatment with colchicine for a gout flare was associated with significantly lower in‐hospital mortality compared with those not treated for acute gout.     

Clinical significance of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitalized patients with myocardial injury

BackgroundThe clinical significance of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) as an associate of myocardial injury is controversial.HypothesisType 2 MI/Myocardial Injury are associated with worse outcomes if complicated by COVID‐19.MethodsThis longitudinal cohort study involved consecutive patients admitted to a large urban hospital. Myocardial injury was determined using laboratory records as ≥1 hs‐TnI result >99th percentile (male: >34 ng/L; female: >16 ng/L). Endotypes were defined according to the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) and COVID‐19 determined using PCR. Outcomes of patients with myocardial injury with and without COVID‐19 were assessed.ResultsOf 346 hospitalized patients with elevated hs‐TnI, 35 (10.1%) had laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 (median age [IQR]; 65 [59–74]; 64.8% male vs. COVID‐19 negative: 74 [63–83] years; 43.7% male). Cardiac endotypes by COVID‐19 status (yes vs. no) were: Type 1 MI (0 [0%] vs. 115 [100%]; p < .0005), Type 2 MI (13 [16.5%] vs. 66 [83.5%]; p = .045), and non‐ischemic myocardial injury (cardiac: 4 [5.8%] vs. 65 [94.2%]; p = .191, non‐cardiac:19 [22.9%] vs. 64 [77.%]; p < .0005). COVID‐19 patients had less comorbidity (median [IQR] Charlson Comorbidity Index: 3.0 [3.0] vs. 5.0 [4.0]; p = .001), similar hs‐TnI concentrations (median [IQR] initial: 46 [113] vs. 62 [138]; p = .199, peak: 122 [474] vs. 79 [220] ng/L; p = .564), longer admission (days) (median [IQR]: 14[19] vs. 6[12]; p = .001) and higher in‐hospital mortality (63.9% vs. 11.3%; OR = 13.2; 95%CI: 5.90, 29.7).ConclusionsCardiac sequelae of COVID‐19 typically manifest as Non‐cardiac myocardial injury/Type 2MI in younger patients with less co‐morbidity. Paradoxically, the admission duration and in‐hospital mortality are increased.     

The value of ECG changes in risk stratification of COVID‐19 patients

BackgroundThere is growing evidence of cardiac injury in COVID‐19. Our purpose was to assess the prognostic value of serial electrocardiograms in COVID‐19 patients.MethodsWe evaluated 269 consecutive patients admitted to our center with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. ECGs available at admission and after 1 week from hospitalization were assessed. We evaluated the correlation between ECGs findings and major adverse events (MAE) as the composite of intra‐hospital all‐cause mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Abnormal ECGs were defined if primary ST‐T segment alterations, left ventricular hypertrophy, tachy or bradyarrhythmias and any new AV, bundle blocks or significant morphology alterations (e.g., new Q pathological waves) were present.ResultsAbnormal ECG at admission (106/216) and elevated baseline troponin values were more common in patients who developed MAE (p = .04 and p = .02, respectively). Concerning ECGs recorded after 7 days (159), abnormal findings were reported in 53.5% of patients and they were more frequent in those with MAE (p = .001). Among abnormal ECGs, ischemic alterations and left ventricular hypertrophy were significantly associated with a higher MAE rate. The multivariable analysis showed that the presence of abnormal ECG at 7 days of hospitalization was an independent predictor of MAE (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.2–8.7; p = .02). Furthermore, patients with abnormal ECG at 7 days more often required transfer to the intensive care unit (p = .01) or renal replacement therapy (p = .04).ConclusionsPatients with COVID‐19 should receive ECG at admission but also during their hospital stay. Indeed, electrocardiographic alterations during hospitalization are associated with MAE and infection severity.     

The impact of COVID‐19 on clinical outcomes among acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing early invasive treatment strategy

BackgroundThe implications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection on outcomes after invasive therapeutic strategies among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are not well studied.HypothesisTo assess the outcomes of COVID‐19 patients presenting with AMI undergoing an early invasive treatment strategy.MethodsThis study was a cross‐sectional, retrospective analysis of the National COVID Cohort Collaborative database including all patients presenting with a recorded diagnosis of AMI (ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and non‐ST elevation MI). COVID‐19 positive patients with AMI were stratified into one of four groups: (1a) patients who had a coronary angiogram with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 3 days of their AMI; (1b) PCI within 3 days of AMI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) within 30 days; (2a) coronary angiogram without PCI and without CABG within 30 days; and (2b) coronary angiogram with CABG within 30 days. The main outcomes were respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock, prolonged length of stay, rehospitalization, and death.ResultsThere were 10 506 COVID‐19 positive patients with a diagnosis of AMI. COVID‐19 positive patients with PCI had 8.2 times higher odds of respiratory failure than COVID‐19 negative patients (p = .001). The odds of prolonged length of stay were 1.7 times higher in COVID‐19 patients who underwent PCI (p = .024) and 1.9 times higher in patients who underwent coronary angiogram followed by CABG (p = .001).ConclusionThese data demonstrate that COVID‐19 positive patients with AMI undergoing early invasive coronary angiography had worse outcomes than COVID‐19 negative patients.     

Factors associated with COVID‐19 related hospitalisation,critical care admission and mortality using linked primary and secondary care data

BackgroundIt is important that population cohorts at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following a COVID‐19 infection are identified and protected.ObjectivesWe identified risk factors associated with increased risk of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in inner North East London (NEL) during the first UK COVID‐19 wave.MethodsMultivariate logistic regression analysis on linked primary and secondary care data from people aged 16 or older with confirmed COVID‐19 infection between 01/02/2020 and 30/06/2020 determined odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P‐values for the association between demographic, deprivation and clinical factors with COVID‐19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and mortality.ResultsOver the study period, 1781 people were diagnosed with COVID‐19, of whom 1195 (67%) were hospitalised, 152 (9%) admitted to ICU and 400 (23%) died. Results confirm previously identified risk factors: being male, or of Black or Asian ethnicity, or aged over 50. Obesity, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) increased the risk of hospitalisation. Obesity increased the risk of being admitted to ICU. Underlying CKD, stroke and dementia increased the risk of death. Having learning disabilities was strongly associated with increased risk of death (OR = 4.75, 95% CI = [1.91, 11.84], P = .001). Having three or four co‐morbidities increased the risk of hospitalisation (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = [1.55, 3.54], P < .001; OR = 2.40, 95% CI = [1.55, 3.73], P < .001 respectively) and death (OR = 2.61, 95% CI = [1.59, 4.28], P < .001; OR = 4.07, 95% CI = [2.48, 6.69], P < .001 respectively).ConclusionsWe confirm that age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, CKD and diabetes are important determinants of risk of COVID‐19 hospitalisation or death. For the first time, we also identify people with learning disabilities and multi‐morbidity as additional patient cohorts that need to be actively protected during COVID‐19 waves.     

Prognostic implications of ST‐segment elevation in lead aVR in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta‐analysis

BackgroundST‐segment elevation (STE) in lead aVR is a useful tool in recognizing patients with left main or left anterior descending coronary obstruction during acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The prognostic implication of STE in lead aVR on outcomes has not been established.MethodsWe performed a systematic search for clinical studies about STE in lead aVR in four databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included in‐hospital (re)infarction, in‐hospital heart failure, and 90‐day mortality.ResultsWe included 7 studies with a total of 7,700 patients. The all‐cause in‐hospital mortality of patients with STE in lead aVR during ACS was significantly higher than that of patients without STE (OR: 4.37, 95% CI 1.63 to 11.68, p = .003). Patients with greater STE (>0.1 mV) in lead aVR had a higher in‐hospital mortality when compared to lower STE (0.05–0.1 mV) (OR: 2.00, 95% CI 1.11–3.60, p = .02), However, STE in aVR was not independently associated with in‐hospital mortality in ACS patients (OR: 2.72, 95% CI 0.85–8.63, p = .09). The incidence of in‐hospital myocardial (re)infarction (OR: 2.77, 95% CI 1.30–5.94, p = .009), in‐hospital heart failure (OR: 2.62, 95% CI 1.06–6.50, p = .04), and 90‐day mortality (OR: 10.19, 95% CI 5.27–19.71, p < .00001) was also noted to be higher in patients STE in lead aVR.ConclusionsThis contemporary meta‐analysis shows STE in lead aVR is a poor prognostic marker in patients with ACS with higher in‐hospital mortality, reinfarction, heart failure and 90‐day mortality. Greater magnitude of STE portends worse prognosis. Further studies are needed to establish an independent predictive role of STE in aVR for these adverse outcomes.     

Prevalence and impact of diabetes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BackgroundDiabetes is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that may predispose COVID‐19 patients to worse clinical outcomes. This study sought to determine the prevalence of diabetes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients and investigate the association of diabetes severe COVID‐19, rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality, and need for mechanical ventilation by performing a systematic review and meta‐analysis.MethodsIndividual studies were selected using a defined search strategy, including results up until July 2021 from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed to estimate the proportions and level of association of diabetes with clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. Forest plots were generated to retrieve the odds ratios (OR), and the quality and risk assessment was performed for all studies included in the meta‐analysis.ResultsThe total number of patients included in this study was 10 648, of whom 3112 had diabetes (29.23%). The overall pooled estimate of prevalence of diabetes in the meta‐analysis cohort was 31% (95% CI, 0.25‐0.38; z = 16.09, P < .0001). Diabetes significantly increased the odds of severe COVID‐19 (OR 3.39; 95% CI, 2.14‐5.37; P < .0001), ARDS (OR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.74‐3.75; P = <.0001), in‐hospital mortality (OR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.93‐3.09; P < .0001), and mechanical ventilation (OR 3.03; 95% CI, 2.17‐4.22; P < .0001).ConclusionsOur meta‐analysis demonstrates that diabetes is significantly associated with increased odds of severe COVID‐19, increased ARDS rate, mortality, and need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients. We also estimated an overall pooled prevalence of diabetes of 31% in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients.     

Changes in cardiac structure and function from 3 to 12 months after hospitalization for COVID‐19

BackgroundCardiac function may be impaired during and early after hospitalization for COVID‐19, but little is known about the progression of cardiac dysfunction and the association with postacute COVID syndrome (PACS).MethodsIn a multicenter prospective cohort study, patients who had been hospitalized with COVID‐19 were enrolled and comprehensive echocardiography was performed 3 and 12 months after discharge. Twenty‐four‐hour electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed at 3 and 12 months in patients with arrhythmias at 3 months.ResultsIn total, 182 participants attended the 3 and 12 months visits (age 58 ± 14 years, 59% male, body mass index 28.2 ± 4.2 kg/m²). Of these, 35 (20%) had severe COVID‐19 (treatment in the intensive care unit) and 74 (52%) had self‐reported dyspnea at 3 months. From 3 to 12 months there were no significant overall changes in any measures of left or right ventricle (LV; RV) structure and function (p > .05 for all), including RV strain (from 26.2 ± 3.9% to 26.5 ± 3.1%, p = .29) and LV global longitudinal strain (from 19.2 ± 2.3% to 19.3 ± 2.3%, p = .64). Changes in echocardiographic parameters from 3 to 12 months did not differ by COVID‐19 severity or by the presence of persistent dyspnea (p > .05 for all). Among patients with arrhythmia at 3 months, there was no significant change in arrhythmia burden to 12 months.ConclusionFollowing COVID‐19, cardiac structure and function remained unchanged from 3 to 12 months after the index hospitalization, irrespective of COVID‐19 severity and presence of persistent dyspnea. These results suggest that progression of cardiac dysfunction after COVID‐19 is rare and unlikely to play an important role in PACS.     

Proenkephalin and the risk of new‐onset heart failure: data from prevention of renal and vascular end‐stage disease

BackgroundEnkephalins of the opioid system exert several cardiorenal effects. Proenkephalin (PENK), a stable surrogate, is associated with heart failure (HF) development after myocardial infarction and worse cardiorenal function and prognosis in patients with HF. The association between plasma PENK concentrations and new‐onset HF in the general population remains to be established.HypothesisWe hypothesized that plasma PENK concentrations are associated with new‐onset HF in the general population.MethodsWe included 6677 participants from the prevention of renal and vascular end‐stage disease study and investigated determinants of PENK concentrations and their association with new‐onset HF (both reduced [HFrEF] and preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]).ResultsMedian PENK concentrations were 52.7 (45.1–61.9) pmol/L. Higher PENK concentrations were associated with poorer renal function and higher NT‐proBNP concentrations. The main determinants of higher PENK concentrations were lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), lower urinary creatinine excretion, and lower body mass index (all p < .001). After a median 8.3 (7.8–8.8) years follow‐up, 221 participants developed HF; 127 HFrEF and 94 HFpEF. PENK concentrations were higher in subjects who developed HF compared with those who did not, 56.2 (45.2–67.6) versus 52.7 (45.1–61.6) pmol/L, respectively (p = .003). In competing‐risk analyses, higher PENK concentrations were associated with higher risk of new‐onset HF (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.09[1.47–2.97], p < .001), including both HFrEF (HR = 2.31[1.48–3.61], p < .001) and HFpEF (HR = 1.74[1.02–2.96], p = .042). These associations were, however, lost after adjustment for eGFR.ConclusionsIn the general population, higher PENK concentrations were associated with lower eGFR and higher NT‐proBNP concentrations. Higher PENK concentrations were not independently associated with new‐onset HFrEF and HFpEF and mainly confounded by eGFR.     

Clinical impact of long PR‐interval and presence of late gadolinium enhancement on hospitalized patients with non‐ischemic heart failure

BackgroundThe combination of electrical and structural remodeling may have a strong effect on the prognosis of non‐ischemic heart failure (HF). We aimed to clarify whether prolonged PR‐interval and the presence of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) influence the outcomes of patients with non‐ischemic HF.MethodsWe studied 262 consecutive hospitalized patients with non‐ischemic HF. In a clinically stable condition, a 12‐lead electrocardiogram and CMR were performed, and the clinical characteristics and outcomes were investigated.ResultsDuring the follow‐up of 967.7 ± 851.8 days, there were 68 (25.9%) cardiac events (HF or sudden death, re‐hospitalization due to HF, or ventricular tachyarrhythmias). In a multivariable analysis, a median rate‐adjusted PR (PRa)‐interval of ≥173.5 ms and the presence of LGE were associated with cardiac events with a hazard ratio of 1.690 and 2.045 (p = .044 and p = .006, respectively). Study subjects were then divided into four groups based on long (≥173.5 ms) or short (<173.5 ms) PRa‐interval and LGE status: short PRa/non‐LGE (n = 80), long PRa/non‐LGE (n = 72), short PRa/LGE (n = 51), and long PRa/LGE (n = 59). Cardiac events were 16.2% in short PRa/non‐LGE, 25.0% in long PRa/non‐LGE, 27.4% in short PRa/LGE, and 38.9% in long PRa/LGE (p = .026), respectively. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that long PRa/LGE was an independent predictor for cardiac events compared to short PRa/non‐LGE (hazard ratio, 3.378, p = .001).ConclusionsThe combination of a long PRa‐interval and the presence of LGE provide a better predictive value of cardiac events in non‐ischemic HF.     

Impact of SARS‐CoV2 on youth onset type 2 diabetes new diagnoses and severity

IntroductionInitial reports show an increase in youth onset type 2 diabetes during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We aim to expand on existing evidence by analyzing trends over a longer period.ObjectivesOur study aims to describe change in the amount, severity, and demographics of youth onset type 2 diabetes diagnoses during the COVID‐19 pandemic compared to the five years before.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cross‐sectional review of youth (age ≤ 21) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during the COVID‐19 pandemic (1 May 2020–30 April 2021) and the five years before (1 May 2015–30 April 2020) at a tertiary care center. Children were identified by International Classification of Diseases codes. Charts were reviewed to confirm diagnosis. Chi‐square, t tests, and Fisher''s exact tests were used for analyses.ResultsIn the prepandemic era annual diagnoses of type 2 diabetes ranged from 41–69 (mean = 54.2), whereas during the pandemic period 159 children were diagnosed, an increase of 293%. The increase resulted in a higher incidence rate ratio during the pandemic than before, 2.77 versus 1.07 (p = .006). New diagnoses increased most, by 490%, in Non‐Hispanic Black patients. The average HbA_1c at presentation was higher during the pandemic (9.5% ± 2.6) (79.9 mmol/mol ± 28.2) than before (8.7%±2.1) (72.1 mmol/mol ± 23.1) (p = .003). Of those diagnosed during the pandemic, 59% were tested for COVID‐19 and three tested positive.ConclusionsNew diagnoses of type 2 diabetes increased during the pandemic, most notably in Non‐Hispanic Black youth. There was not a significant correlation found with clinical or biochemical COVID‐19 infection in those tested.     

Sex differences in treatment and outcomes of patients with in‐hospital ST‐elevation myocardial infarction

Background and HypothesisTwo cohorts face high mortality after ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): females and patients with in‐hospital STEMI. The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in ischemic times and outcomes of in‐hospital STEMI patients.MethodsConsecutive STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were prospectively recruited from 30 hospitals into the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (2013−2018). Sex discrepancies within in‐hospital STEMIs were compared with out‐of‐hospital STEMIs. The primary endpoint was 12‐month all‐cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included symptom‐to‐device (STD) time and 30‐day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). To investigate the relationship between sex and 12‐month mortality for in‐hospital versus out‐of‐hospital STEMIs, an interaction analysis was included in the multivariable models.ResultsA total of 7493 STEMI patients underwent PCI of which 494 (6.6%) occurred in‐hospital. In‐hospital versus out‐of‐hospital STEMIs comprised 31.9% and 19.9% females, respectively. Female in‐hospital STEMIs were older (69.5 vs. 65.9 years, p = .003) with longer adjusted geometric mean STD times (104.6 vs. 94.3 min, p < .001) than men. Female versus male in‐hospital STEMIs had no difference in 12‐month mortality (27.1% vs. 20.3%, p = .92) and MACE (22.8% vs. 19.3%, p = .87). Female sex was not independently associated with 12‐month mortality for in‐hospital STEMIs which was consistent across the STEMI cohort (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.94–1.70, p = .13).ConclusionsIn‐hospital STEMIs are more frequent in females relative to out‐of‐hospital STEMIs. Despite already being under medical care, females with in‐hospital STEMIs experienced a 10‐min mean excess in STD time compared with males, after adjustment for confounders. Adjusted 12‐month mortality and MACE were similar to males.     

Vaccine‐preventable disease hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BackgroundOver five million Americans suffer from heart failure (HF), and this is associated with multiple chronic comorbidities and recurrent decompensation. Currently, there is an increased incidence in vaccine‐preventable diseases (VPDs). We aim to investigate the impact of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in patients hospitalized with VPDs.HypothesisPatient with HFrEF are at higher risk for VPDs and they carry a higher risk for in‐hospital complications.MethodsRetrospective analysis from all hospital admissions from the 2016‐2018 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using the ICD‐10CM codes for patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of VPDs with HFrEF and those without reduced ejection fraction. Outcomes evaluated were in‐hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), healthcare utilization, frequency of admissions, and in‐hospital complications. Multivariate regression analysis was conducted to adjust for confounders.ResultsOut of 317 670 VPDs discharges, we identified 12 130 (3.8%) patients with HFrEF as a comorbidity. The most common admission diagnosis for VPDs was influenza virus (IV) infection (75.0% vs. 64.1%; p < .01), followed by pneumococcal pneumonia (PNA) (13% vs. 9.4%; p < .01). After adjusting for confounders, patients with HFrEF had higher odds of having diagnosis of IV (adjusted [aOR], 1.42; p < .01) and PNA (aOR, 1.27; p < .01). Patients with VPDs and HFrEF had significantly higher odds of mortality (aOR, 1.76; p < .01), LOS, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation for less than 96 h.ConclusionInfluenza and PNA were the most common VPDs admitted to the hospital in patients with a concomitant diagnosis of HFrEF. They were associated with increased mortality and in‐hospital complications.     

The prognostic significance of electrocardiography findings in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A retrospective study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has reached a pandemic level. Cardiac injury is not uncommon among COVID‐19 patients. We sought to describe the electrocardiographic characteristics and to identify the prognostic significance of electrocardiography (ECG) findings of patients with COVID‐19.HypothesisECG abnormality was associated with higher risk of death.MethodsConsecutive patients with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and definite in‐hospital outcome were retrospectively included. Demographic characteristics and clinical data were extracted from medical record. Initial ECGs at admission or during hospitalization were reviewed. A point‐based scoring system of abnormal ECG findings was formed, in which 1 point each was assigned for the presence of axis deviation, arrhythmias, atrioventricular block, conduction tissue disease, QTc interval prolongation, pathological Q wave, ST‐segment change, and T‐wave change. The association between abnormal ECG scores and in‐hospital mortality was assessed in multivariable Cox regression models.ResultsA total of 306 patients (mean 62.84 ± 14.69 years old, 48.0% male) were included. T‐wave change (31.7%), QTc interval prolongation (30.1%), and arrhythmias (16.3%) were three most common found ECG abnormalities. 30 (9.80%) patients died during hospitalization. Abnormal ECG scores were significantly higher among non‐survivors (median 2 points vs 1 point, p < 0.001). The risk of in‐hospital death increased by a factor of 1.478 (HR 1.478, 95% CI 1.131–1.933, p = 0.004) after adjusted by age, comorbidities, cardiac injury and treatments.ConclusionsECG abnormality was common in patients admitted for COVID‐19 and was associated with adverse in‐hospital outcome. In‐hospital mortality risk increased with increasing abnormal ECG scores.     

Influence of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of all‐cause mortality and other clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed COVID‐19: A systemic review and meta‐analysis

Since the COVID‐19 pandemic, physicians concerned about the potential adverse effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). To explore the relationship between ACEIs/ARBs and the risk of mortality and other clinical outcomes in COVID‐19 patients, the authors conducted a systemic review and meta‐analysis. An electronic search was performed from inception to November 12, 2020 in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials, TRIP, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM database. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies of Interventions tool. The primary outcome was in‐hospital all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included all‐cause mortality measured at 30‐day or longer term, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, readmission, and cardiac adverse events. A total of 28 studies with 73 465 patients was included. Twenty‐two studies with 19 871 patients reported the incidence of all‐cause mortality. Results showed no association between using ACEIs/ARBs and risk of mortality crude odds ratio （OR） of 1.02, 95% CI 0.71–1.46, p = .90, I ² = 88%, adjusted OR in 6260 patients of 0.96, 95% CI 0.77–1.18, p = .68, I ² = 0%. While six studies with 10 030 patients reported a lower risk of mortality in ACEIs/ARBs group hazard ratio (HR) of 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84, p = .007, I ² = 68%. Similar association (for HR) was found in hypertension subgroup. There was no significant association for the secondary outcomes. Based on the available data, we concluded that ACEIs/ARBs is not associated with the risk of in‐hospital all‐cause mortality in COVID‐19 patients, but may be associated with a decreased risk of 30‐day all‐cause mortality. Patients with hypertension may benefit from using ACEIs/ARBs.     

Day‐by‐day blood pressure variability in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19

In a retrospective analysis, the authors investigated day‐by‐day blood pressure variability (BPV) and its association with clinical outcomes (critical vs. severe and discharged) in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. The study participants were hospitalized in Tongji Hospital, Guanggu Branch, Wuhan, China, between February 1 and April 1, 2020. BPV was assessed as standard derivation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of mean (VIM). The 79 participants included 60 (75.9%) severe patients discharged from the hospital after up to 47 days of hospitalization, and 19 (24.1%) critically ill patients transferred to other hospitals for further treatment (n = 13), admitted to ICU (n = 3) or died (n=3). Despite similar use of antihypertensive medication (47.4% vs. 41.7%) and mean levels of systolic/diastolic blood pressure (131.3/75.2 vs. 125.4/77.3 mmHg), critically ill patients, compared with severe and discharged patients, had a significantly (p ≤ .04) greater variability of systolic (SD 14.92 vs. 10.84 mmHg, CV 11.39% vs. 8.56%, and VIM 15.15 vs. 10.75 units) and diastolic blood pressure (SD 9.38 vs. 7.50 mmHg, CV 12.66% vs. 9.80%, and VIM 9.33 vs. 7.50 units). After adjustment for confounding factors, the odds ratios for critical versus severe and discharged patients for systolic BPV were 3.41 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20‐9.66, p = .02), 4.09 (95% CI 1.14‐14.67, p = .03), and 2.81 (95% CI 1.12‐7.05, p = .03) for each 5‐mmHg increment in SD, 5% increment in CV, and 5‐unit increment in VIM, respectively. Similar trends were observed for diastolic BPV indices (p ≤ .08). In conclusion, in patients with COVID‐19, BPV was greater and associated with worse clinical outcomes.