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.     

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.     

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.     

Etiology,risk factors,and prognosis of patients with syncope: A single‐center analysis

ObjectiveTo investigate the main causes, risk factors, and prognosis of patients hospitalized with syncope.MethodsThe patients admitted due to syncope were included. We analyzed the etiology, risk factors, and prognosis of patients with an average follow‐up of 15.3 months.ResultsHigh‐risk factors for cardiogenic syncope included age ≥60, male, hypertension, palpitation, troponin T‐positive, abnormal ECG, CHD history, and syncope‐related trauma. Mortality rate was 4.6%, recurrence rate of syncope was 10.5%, and the rehospitalization rate was 8.5%. Univariate analysis showed that prognosis of syncope was related to age ≥60 years old, hypertension, positive troponin T, abnormal electrocardiogram, and coronary heart disease (p < .05). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that age ≥60 years old (p = .021) and high‐sensitivity troponin‐positive (p = .024) were strongly related to the prognosis of syncope. Kaplan–Meier curve showed statistical difference in the survival rate between the groups divided by age ≥60 years (p = .028), hs‐TnT‐positive (p < .001), abnormal ECG (p = .027), and history of CHD (p = .020).ConclusionHigh‐risk factors for cardiogenic syncope included age ≥60, male, hypertension, palpitation, troponin T‐positive, abnormal ECG, CHD family history, and syncope‐related trauma. Age, hypertension, troponin T‐positive, abnormal ECG, and CHD history were associated with the prognosis of syncope.     

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.     

Acute cardiovascular hospitalizations and illness severity before and during the COVID‐19 pandemic

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) hospitalizations declined worldwide during the COVID‐19 pandemic. It is unclear how shelter‐in‐place orders affected acute CVD hospitalizations, illness severity, and outcomes.HypothesisCOVID‐19 pandemic was associated with reduced acute CVD hospitalizations (heart failure [HF], acute coronary syndrome [ACS], and stroke [CVA]), and worse HF illness severity.MethodsWe compared acute CVD hospitalizations at Duke University Health System before and after North Carolina''s shelter‐in‐place order (January 1–March 29 vs. March 30–August 31), and used parallel comparison cohorts from 2019. We explored illness severity among admitted HF patients using ADHERE (“high risk”: >2 points) and GWTG‐HF (“>10%”: >57 points) in‐hospital mortality risk scores, as well as echocardiography‐derived parameters.ResultsComparing hospitalizations during January 1–March 29 (N = 1618) vs. March 30–August 31 (N = 2501) in 2020, mean daily CVD hospitalizations decreased (18.2 vs. 16.1 per day, p = .0036), with decreased length of stay (8.4 vs. 7.5 days, p = .0081) and no change in in‐hospital mortality (4.7 vs. 5.3%, p = .41). HF hospitalizations decreased (9.0 vs. 7.7 per day, p = .0019), with higher ADHERE (“high risk”: 2.5 vs. 4.5%; p = .030), but unchanged GWTG‐HF (“>10%”: 5.3 vs. 4.6%; p = .45), risk groups. Mean LVEF was lower (39.0 vs. 37.2%, p = .034), with higher mean LV mass (262.4 vs. 276.6 g, p = .014).ConclusionsCVD hospitalizations, HF illness severity, and echocardiography measures did not change between admission periods in 2019. Evaluating short‐term data, the COVID‐19 shelter‐in‐place order was associated with reductions in acute CVD hospitalizations, particularly HF, with no significant increase in in‐hospital mortality and only minor differences in HF illness severity.     

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.     

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.     

T‐wave heterogeneity in standard resting 12‐lead ECGs is associated with 90‐day cardiac mortality in women following emergency department admission: A nested case–control study

BackgroundWe investigated whether T‐wave heterogeneity (TWH) can identify patients who are at risk for near‐term cardiac mortality.MethodsA nested case–control analysis was performed in the 888 patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of our medical center in July through September 2018 who had ≥2 serial troponin measurement tests within 6 hr for acute coronary syndrome evaluation to rule‐in or rule‐out the presence of acute myocardial infarction. Patients who died from cardiac causes during 90 days after ED admission were considered cases (n = 20; 10 women) and were matched 1:4 on sex and age with patients who survived during this period (n = 80, 40 women). TWH, that is, interlead splay of T waves, was automatically assessed from precordial leads by second central moment analysis.ResultsTWH_V4‐6 was significantly elevated at ED admission in 12‐lead resting ECGs of female patients who died of cardiac causes during the following 90 days compared to female survivors (100 ± 14.9 vs. 40 ± 3.6 µV, p < .0001). TWH_V4‐6 generated areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.933 in women (p < .0001) and 0.573 in men (p = .4). In women, the ROC‐guided 48‐µV TWH_V4‐6 cut point for near‐term cardiac mortality produced an adjusted odds ratio of 121.37 (95% CI: 2.89–6,699.84; p = .02) with 100% sensitivity and 82.5% specificity. In Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, TWH_V4‐6 ≥ 48 µV predicted cardiac mortality in women during 90‐day follow‐up with a hazard ratio of 27.84 (95% CI: 7.29–106.36, p < .0001).ConclusionElevated TWH_V4‐6 is associated with near‐term cardiac mortality among women evaluated for acute coronary syndrome.     

Interactions between hypertension and inflammatory tone and the effect on blood pressure and outcomes in patients with COVID‐19

Arterial hypertension represented one of the most common comorbidities in patients with COVID‐19. However, the impact of hypertension on outcome in COVID‐19 patients is not clear. Close connections between inflammation and blood pressure (BP) have been described, and inflammation plays a key role in the outcome for patients with COVID‐19. Whether hypertension impairs the relationship between inflammation, BP, and outcomes in this context is not known. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the interactions between inflammation and hypertension status on BP and clinical outcome in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. We designed a retrospective study in 129 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 at Toulouse University Hospital. The hospital outcome was admission to the intensive care unit or death. The inflammatory markers were blood C‐reactive protein level (CRP), neutrophil to lymphocyte, and platelet to lymphocyte ratios. We identified strong correlations between CRP (P < .01) and the other inflammatory markers recorded on admission (P < .001) with mean BP within 3 days after admission in normotensive patients, whereas these correlations were absent in patients with hypertension. Also, we observed after multivariate adjustment (P < .05) that CRP level predicted a worse prognosis in hypertensive patients (relative risk 2.52; 95% confidence intervals [1.03‐ 6.17]; P = .04), whereas CRP was not predictive of outcome in patients without hypertension. In conclusion, the study revealed that in COVID‐19 patients, hypertension impairs the relationship between inflammation and BP and interacts with inflammation to affect prognosis. These findings provide insights that could explain the relationship between hypertension and outcomes in COVID‐19 patients.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The impact of hydroxychloroquine–azithromycin combination on Tpeak‐to‐end and Tpeak‐to‐end/QT ratio during a short treatment course

BackgroundSince there was no proven treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), hydroxychloroquine–azithromycin (HCQ‐AZM) combination is being used in different countries as a treatment option. Many controversies exist related to the safety and effectiveness of this combination, and questions about how HCQ‐AZM combination affects the ventricular repolarization are still unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to show whether the hydroxychloroquine–azithromycin (HCQ‐AZM) combination prolonged Tpeak‐to‐end (TpTe) duration and TpTe/QT interval ratio or not.MethodsOne hundred and twenty‐six consequent COVID‐19(+) patients meeting the study criteria were enrolled in this study. Baseline ECGs were obtained immediately after hospitalization and before commencing the HCQ‐AZM combination. On‐treatment ECG was obtained 24–48 hr after the loading dose of HCQ/AZM. ECG parameters including PR interval, QRS duration, QT interval, QTc interval, TpTe duration, and TpTe/QT interval ratio were assessed. Demographic and laboratory findings were collected from an electronic recording system.ResultsECGs of 126 COVID‐19(+) patients who received HCQ‐AZM combination were assessed. Mean baseline QTc (by Fridericia formula), TpTe, and TpTe/QT ratio were 420.0 ± 26.5 ms, 82.43 ± 9.77 ms, and 0.22 ± 0.02, respectively. On‐treatment QTc, TpTe and TpTe/QT ratio were 425.7 ± 27.18 ms, 85.17 ± 11.17 ms, and 0.22 ± 0.03, respectively. No statistically significant acute impacts of HCQ‐AZM combination on TpTe duration and TpTe/QT interval ratio were observed compared with baseline values. No ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation and the significant conduction delays were seen during in‐hospital follow‐up.ConclusionHCQ‐AZM combination increased TpTe duration. However, no significant impact on TpTe/QT interval ratio was observed.     

Prognostic implications of biventricular strain measurement in COVID‐19 patients by speckle‐tracking echocardiography

BackgroundRecent reports have indicated the beneficial role of strain measurement in COVID‐19 patients.HypothesisTo determine the association between right and left global longitudinal strain (RVGLS, LVGLS) and COVID‐19 patients'' outcomes.MethodsHospitalized COVID‐19 patients between June and August 2020 were included. Two‐dimensional echocardiography and biventricular global longitudinal strain measurement were performed. The outcome measure was defined as mortality, ICU admission, and need for intubation. Appropriate statistical tests were used to compare different groups.ResultsIn this study 207 patients (88 females) were enrolled. During 64 ± 4 days of follow‐up, 22 (10.6%) patients died. Mortality, ICU admission, and intubation were significantly associated with LVGLS and RVGLS tertiles. LVGLS tertiles could predict poor outcome with significant odds ratios in the total population (OR = 0.203, 95% CI: 0.088–0.465; OR = 0.350, 95% CI: 0.210–0.585; OR = 0.354, 95% CI: 0.170–0.736 for mortality, ICU admission, and intubation). Although odds ratios of LVGLS for the prediction of outcome were statistically significant among hypertensive patients, these odds ratios did not reach significance among non‐hypertensive patients. RVGLS tertiles revealed significant odds ratios for the prediction of mortality (OR = 0.322, 95% CI: 0.162–0.640), ICU admission (OR = 0.287, 95% CI: 0.166–0.495), and need for intubation (OR = 0.360, 95% CI: 0.174–0.744). Odds ratios of RVGLS remained significant even after adjusting for hypertension when considering mortality and ICU admission.ConclusionRVGLS and LVGLS can be acceptable prognostic factors to predict mortality, ICU admission, and intubation in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients. However, RVGLS seems more reliable, as it is not confounded by hypertension.     

Association of non‐invasive electrocardiographic risk factors with left ventricular systolic function in post‐myocardial infarction patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the PRESERVE‐EF study

BackgroundElectrocardiographic non‐invasive risk factors (NIRFs) have an important role in the arrhythmic risk stratification of post‐myocardial infarction (post‐MI) patients with preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, their specific relation to left ventricular systolic function remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association between NIRFs and LVEF in the patients included in the PRESERVE‐EF trial.MethodsWe studied 575 post‐MI ischemia‐free patients with LVEF≥40% (mean age: 57.0 ± 10.4 years, 86.2% men). The following NIRFs were evaluated: premature ventricular complexes, non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), late potentials (LPs), prolonged QTc, increased T‐wave alternans, reduced heart rate variability, and abnormal deceleration capacity with abnormal turbulence.ResultsThere was a statistically significant relationship between LPs (Chi‐squared = 4.975; p < .05), nsVT (Chi‐squared = 5.749, p < .05), PVCs (r= −.136; p < .01), and the LVEF. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed that LPs (p = .001) and NSVT (p < .001) were significant predictors of the LVEF. The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that LPs (OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.02–3.05; p = .004) and NSVT (OR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.18–5.04; p = .001) were independent predictors of the mildly reduced LVEF: 40%–49% versus the preserved LVEF: ≥50%.ConclusionLate potentials and NSVT are independently related to reduced LVEF while they are independent predictors of mildly reduced LVEF versus the preserved LVEF. These findings may have important implications for the arrhythmic risk stratification of post‐MI patients with mildly reduced or preserved LVEF.     

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.     

PR interval prolongation is significantly associated with aortic root abscess: An age‐ and gender‐matched study

BackgroundElectrocardiographic abnormalities, such as PR interval prolongation, have been anecdotally reported in patients with aortic root abscess (ARA). An electrocardiographic marker may be useful in identifying those patients with aortic valve endocarditis who may progress to ARA. The objective of this study is to evaluate the change in the PR interval in patients with surgically confirmed ARA and compare it to age‐ and gender‐matched controls with echocardiographically or surgically confirmed aortic valve endocarditis but without aortic root abscess and those hospitalized with diagnoses other than endocarditis.MethodsPatients were eligible for enrollment if they were 18 years or older and were hospitalized for either ARA, aortic valve endocarditis, or for unrelated reasons and had at least one 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG) prior to or on the day of hospitalization and at least one ECG after hospitalization but prior to any cardiac surgical procedure. Delta PR interval, defined as the difference between the pre‐ and post‐admission PR interval, was the primary outcome of interest. The patients in the ARA group were age‐ and gender‐matched to patients with aortic valve endocarditis and to those without endocarditis. Comparisons of demographic variables and study outcomes were performed.ResultsEighteen patients with surgically confirmed ARA were enrolled. These patients were age‐ and gender‐matched to 19 patients with aortic valve endocarditis and 18 patients with no past history or evidence of endocarditis during hospitalization. No difference was noted in the baseline PR interval between the groups. However, the PR interval following admission in the aortic root abscess group (201 ± 66 ms) was significantly longer than the PR interval in both the aortic valve endocarditis (162 ± 27 ms) (24%, p = .009) and no endocarditis (143 ± 24 ms) (40%, p < .001) groups. The primary outcome measure, delta PR interval, was significantly longer in the ARA group (35 ± 51 ms) than no endocarditis (−5 ± 17 ms) (p = .001) and aortic valve endocarditis groups (0.2 ± 18) (p = .003).ConclusionsThe findings of our study support the notion that the PR interval is more likely to be prolonged in patients with ARA. Since ARA is associated with a high morbidity and mortality, PR interval prolongation in a patient with aortic valve endocarditis should prompt a thorough evaluation for aortic root involvement.     

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.