Mortality associated with COVID‐19 and hypertension in sub‐Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Hypertension is a common comorbidity in COVID‐19 patients. However, little data is available on mortality in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Herein, the authors conducted a systematic review of research articles published from January 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021. Our aim was to evaluate the magnitude of COVID‐19 mortality in patients with hypertension in SSA. Following the PRISMA guidelines, two independent investigators conducted the literature review to collect relevant data. The authors used a random effect model to estimate the odds ratio, or hazard ratio, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Furthermore, the authors used Egger''s tests to check for publication bias. For mortality analysis, the authors included data on 29 945 COVID‐19 patients from seven publications. The authors assessed the heterogeneity across studies with the I² test. Finally, the pooled analysis revealed that hypertension was associated with an increased odds of mortality among COVID‐19 inpatients (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13–1.50). Our analysis revealed neither substantial heterogeneity across studies nor a publication bias. Therefore, our prespecified results provided new evidence that hypertension could increase the risk of mortality from COVID‐19 in SSA.     

Safety of ACEi and ARB in COVID‐19 management: A retrospective analysis

Background & AimsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV2)is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host''s inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID‐19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS‐CoV2 infection.Severe acute respiratory yndrome with coronavirus (SARS‐CoV2) is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of COVID‐19 depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host''s inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID‐19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS‐CoV2 infection.Materials & MethodologyThis multicenter retrospective observational study enrolled 2935 COVID‐19 patients admitted at six hospitals in Southern California, USA, between March 2020 and August 2021. Our primary outcome was the association of pre‐hospital use of ACEi and ARB on in‐hospital mortality in COVID‐19 patients. First, relevant deidentified patient data were extracted using an SQL program from the electronic medical record. Then, a bivariate analysis of the relationship between ACEi and ARB use and different study variables using χ ² and t test was done. Finally, we did a backward selection Cox multivariate regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable.ResultsOf the 2935 patients in the study, hypertension was present in 40.6%, and congestive heart failure in 13.8%. ACEi and ARB were used by 17.5% and 11.3% of patients, respectively, with 28.8% of patients on either medication. After adjusting for confounding variables in the multivariate analysis, the use of ACEi (HR: 1.226, 95% CI: 0.989–1.520) or ARB (HR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.701–1.216) was not independently associated with increased mortality.ConclusionOur results are consistent with the clinical guidelines and position statements per the International Society of Hypertension, that there is no indication to stop the use of ACEi/ARB in COVID‐19 patients.     

Some characteristics of clinical sequelae of COVID‐19 survivors from Wuhan,China: A multi‐center longitudinal study

BackgroundThe pandemic of COVID‐19 has a persistent impact on global health, yet its sequelae need to be addressed at a wide scale around the globe. This study aims to investigate the characteristics, prevalence, and risk factors for mid‐term (>6 months) clinical sequelae in a cohort of COVID‐19 survivors.MethodsTotally 715 COVID‐19 survivors discharged before April 1, 2020, from three medical centers in Wuhan, China, were included. The longitudinal study was conducted by telephone interviews based on a questionnaire including the clinical sequelae of general, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems. Demographics and some characteristics of clinical sequelae of the survivors were recorded and analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to explore the risk factors for the sequelae.ResultsThe median time interval from discharge to telephone interview was 225.0 days. The COVID‐19 survivors'' median ages were 69 years, and 51.3% were male. Among them, 29.9% had at least one clinical sequela. There were 19.2%, 22.7%, and 5.0% of the survivors reporting fatigue, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, respectively. Comorbidities, disease severity, the application of mechanical ventilation and high‐flow oxygen therapy, and the history of re‐admission were associated with the presence of clinical sequelae.ConclusionsOur study provides further evidence for the prevalence and characteristics of clinical sequelae of COVID‐19 survivors, suggesting long‐term monitoring and management is needed for their full recovery.     

Prognostic significance of day‐by‐day in‐hospital blood pressure variability in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension

Hypertension is the most common comorbidity in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and increases in‐hospital mortality. Day‐by‐day blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) is associated with clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients. However, little information is available on the association of BPV with the outcomes of COVID‐19 patients with hypertension. This study aimed to demonstrate whether day‐by‐day in‐hospital BPV had prognostic significance in these patients. The authors included 702 COVID‐19 patients with hypertension from Huoshenshan Hospital (Wuhan, China), who underwent valid in‐hospital BP measurements on at least seven consecutive days. Day‐by‐day BPV was assessed by standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variation independent of mean (VIM). Overall, patients with severe COVID‐19 and non‐survivors had higher BPV than moderate cases and survivors, respectively. Additionally, higher BPV was correlated with greater age and higher levels of C‐reactive protein, procalcitonin, high‐sensitive cardiac troponin I, and B‐type natriuretic peptide. In multivariable Cox regression, SD of systolic BP (SBP) was predictive of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–1.30] as well as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01–1.16). Similar trends were observed for CV and VIM of SBP, but not indices of diastolic BP variability. The authors demonstrated that day‐by‐day in‐hospital SBP variability can independently predict mortality and ARDS in COVID‐19 patients with hypertension. And high BPV might be correlated with severe inflammation and myocardial injury. Further studies are needed to clarify whether early reduction of BPV will improve the prognosis of these patients.     

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.     

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.     

Association between electrocardiographic features and mortality in COVID‐19 patients

BackgroundCardiovascular events have been reported in the setting of coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19). It has been hypothesized that systemic inflammation may aggravate arrhythmias or trigger new‐onset conduction abnormalities. However, the specific type and distribution of electrocardiographic disturbances in COVID‐19 as well as their influence on mortality remain to be fully characterized.MethodsElectrocardiograms (ECGs) were obtained from 186 COVID‐19‐positive patients at a large tertiary care hospital in Northern Nevada. The following arrhythmias were identified by cardiologists: sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, atrial fibrillation (A‐Fib), atrial flutter, multifocal atrial tachycardia (MAT), premature atrial contraction (PAC), premature ventricular contraction (PVC), atrioventricular block (AVB), and right bundle branch block (RBBB). The mean PR interval, QRS duration, and corrected QT interval were documented. Fisher''s exact test was used to compare the ECG features of patients who died during the hospitalization with those who survived. The influence of ECG features on mortality was assessed with multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsA‐Fib, atrial flutter, and ST‐segment depression were predictive of mortality. In addition, the mean ventricular rate was higher among patients who died as compared to those who survived. The use of therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with reduced odds of death; however, this association did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionThe underlying pathogenesis of COVID‐19‐associated arrhythmias remains to be established, but we postulate that systemic inflammation and/or hypoxia may induce potentially lethal conduction abnormalities in affected individuals. Longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate the risk factors, pathogenesis, and management of COVID‐19‐associated cardiac arrhythmias.     

Independent and combined effects of hypertension and diabetes on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID‐19: A retrospective cohort study of Huoshen Mountain Hospital and Guanggu Fangcang Shelter Hospital

It is widely recognized that hypertension is one of the major risk factor for disease severity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension are frequent comorbid conditions, complicating the assessment of hypertension''s individual contribution to the risk. The aims of this study were to evaluate the contributions of hypertension alone, T2DM alone, or their combination to the risk of death, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)/respiratory failure, and severe COVID‐19 infection. Additionally, we assessed risks associated with elevated blood pressure and fasting blood glucose on the same three clinical outcomes. Multivariate logistic models were used for these analyses. Among the 3400 patients, 3327(97.9%) survived and 73(2.1%) died. Compared to patients having neither hypertension nor T2DM (n = 1392), the risk of mortality was significantly higher in patients with T2DM alone (n = 226, OR 5.26 [95% CI: 2.39–11.58]) or with T2DM in combination with hypertension (n = 507, OR 3.02, [95% CI: 1.48–6.15]). Similarly, T2DM was a risk factor for development of ARDS/respiratory failure and severe infection. Hypertension alone (n = 1275) only conferred additional risk for the development of severe infection (OR 1.22 [95% CI: 1.00–1.51]). In conclusion, neither hypertension nor elevated blood pressure was independent risk factors for death or ARDS/respiratory failure but hypertension marginally increased the risk of severe COVID‐19 infection. The risk associated with hypertension is accentuated through its confounding effect on T2DM.     

Myocarditis after COVID‐19 mRNA vaccination: A systematic review of case reports and case series

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID‐19) is a global pandemic with over 266 million cases and 5 million deaths worldwide. Anti‐COVID‐19 vaccinations have had exceptional success in subduing the incidence, prevalence, and disease severity of COVID‐19, but rare cases of myocarditis have been reported after COVID‐19 vaccinations.HypothesisMyocarditis occurring after COVID‐19 mRNA vaccinations have distinguishable clinical characteristics. They usually have a favorable prognosis.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search on PUBMED and MEDLINE database from inception to December 5, 2021. Studies were analyzed based on predetermined eligibility criteria.ResultsA total of 57 studies containing 275 cases of COVID‐19 vaccine‐associated myocarditis were catalogued. Mean age was 26.7 years and male to female ratio was 14:1. For 86.9% of patients, myocarditis occurred after the second dose. Average time to onset and length of hospitalization were 3.7 and 3.9 days, respectively. Prognosis was largely benign, but there was a 1.1% reported mortality. Chest pain (95.2%), elevation of troponin (100%), and ST elevation on electrocardiography (68.5%) were common. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (81.4%) were the most used medication, followed by colchicine (33.1%).ConclusionsPatients with COVID‐19 vaccine‐associated myocarditis are usually younger males presenting with chest pain 3–4 days after receiving their second dose of COVID vaccine. Diagnosis is made by exclusion of all other etiologies. Given significant population benefit from COVID‐19 vaccination, physicians should continue to encourage vaccination while remaining vigilant of the very rare occurrence of myocarditis following COVID‐19 vaccination.     

Cytological patterns of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in mechanically ventilated COVID‐19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

IntroductionCoronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patterns of inflammatory bronchoalveolar cells in COVID‐19 patients treated with ECMO are not well described.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe inflammatory cell subpopulations in blood and bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) obtained in critically ill COVID‐19 patients shortly after ECMO implementation.MethodsBAL was performed in the middle lobe in 12 consecutive ECMO‐treated COVID‐19 patients. Trained cytologists analyzed peripheral blood and BAL cells using flow cytometry and routine staining, respectively. Data were interpreted in relation to dexamethasone administration and weaning from ECMO and ventilator.ResultsHigh neutrophil proportions (66% to 88% of total cells) were observed in the absence of bacterial superinfection and more frequently in dexamethasone‐free patients (83% [82–85] vs. 29% [8–68], P = 0.006), suggesting that viral infection could be responsible of predominantly neutrophilic lung inflammation. Successful weaning from ECMO/ventilator could not be predicted by the peripheral white blood and BAL cell pattern.ConclusionHigh neutrophil proportions can be observed in critically ill COVID‐19 patients despite the lack of microbiological evidence on BAL of bacterial superinfection. Dexamethasone was associated with lower neutrophil proportions in BAL. Our study was probably underpowered to provide BAL cell pattern helpful to predict weaning from ECMO/ventilator.     

Impact of varying wave periods of COVID‐19 on in‐hospital mortality and length of stay for admission through emergency department: A territory‐wide observational cohort study

BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic has been associated with excess mortality and reduced emergency department attendance. However, the effect of varying wave periods of COVID‐19 on in‐hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS) for non‐COVID disease for non‐COVID diseases remains unexplored.MethodsWe examined a territory‐wide observational cohort of 563,680 emergency admissions between January 1 and November 30, 2020, and 709,583 emergency admissions during the same 2019 period in Hong Kong, China. Differences in 28‐day in‐hospital mortality risk and LOS due to COVID‐19 were evaluated.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of 28‐day in‐hospital mortality increased overall from 2.9% in 2019 to 3.6% in 2020 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.22, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.25). The aHR was higher among patients with lower respiratory tract infection (aHR: 1.30 95% CI 1.26 to 1.34), airway disease (aHR: 1.35 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49), and mental disorders (aHR: 1.26 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37). Mortality risk in the first‐ and third‐wave periods was significantly greater than that in the inter‐wave period (p‐interaction < 0.001). The overall average LOS in the pandemic year was significantly shorter than that in 2019 (Mean difference = −0.40 days; 95% CI −0.43 to −0.36). Patients with mental disorders and cerebrovascular disease in 2020 had a 3.91‐day and 2.78‐day shorter LOS than those in 2019, respectively.ConclusionsIncreased risk of in‐hospital deaths was observed overall and by all major subgroups of disease during the pandemic period. Together with significantly reduced LOS for patients with mental disorders and cerebrovascular disease, this study shows the spillover effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic.     

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 coronavirus disease 2019 on respiratory surveillance and explanation of high detection rate of human rhinovirus during the pandemic in the Republic of Korea

BackgroundAfter the detection of the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in South Korea on January 20, 2019, it has triggered three major outbreaks. To decrease the disease burden of COVID‐19, social distancing and active mask wearing were encouraged, reducing the number of patients with influenza‐like illness and altering the detection rate of influenza and respiratory viruses in the Korea Influenza and Respiratory Viruses Surveillance System (KINRESS). We examined the changes in respiratory viruses due to COVID‐19 in South Korea and virological causes of the high detection rate of human rhinovirus (hRV) in 2020.MethodsWe collected 52 684 oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients with influenza‐like illness in cooperation with KINRESS from 2016 to 2020. Influenza virus and other respiratory viruses were confirmed using real‐time RT‐PCR. The weekly detection rate was used to compare virus detection patterns.ResultsNon‐enveloped virus (hRV, human bocavirus, and human adenovirus) detection rates during the COVID‐19 pandemic were maintained. The detection rate of hRV significantly increased in 2020 compared with that in 2019 and was negatively correlated with number of COVID‐19‐confirmed cases in 2020. The distribution of strains and genetic characteristics in hRV did not differ between 2019 and 2020.ConclusionsThe COVID‐19 pandemic impacted the respiratory virus detection rate. The extremely low detection rate of enveloped viruses resulted from efforts to prevent the spread of COVID‐19 in South Korea. The high detection rate of hRV may be related to resistance against environmental conditions as a non‐enveloped virus and the long period of viral shedding from patients.     

Community predictors of COVID‐19 cases and deaths in Massachusetts: Evaluating changes over time using geospatially refined data

BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the need for targeted local interventions given substantial heterogeneity within cities and counties. Publicly available case data are typically aggregated to the city or county level to protect patient privacy, but more granular data are necessary to identify and act upon community‐level risk factors that can change over time.MethodsIndividual COVID‐19 case and mortality data from Massachusetts were geocoded to residential addresses and aggregated into two time periods: “Phase 1” (March–June 2020) and “Phase 2” (September 2020 to February 2021). Institutional cases associated with long‐term care facilities, prisons, or homeless shelters were identified using address data and modeled separately. Census tract sociodemographic and occupational predictors were drawn from the 2015–2019 American Community Survey. We used mixed‐effects negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs), accounting for town‐level spatial autocorrelation.ResultsCase incidence was elevated in census tracts with higher proportions of Black and Latinx residents, with larger associations in Phase 1 than Phase 2. Case incidence associated with proportion of essential workers was similarly elevated in both Phases. Mortality IRRs had differing patterns from case IRRs, decreasing less substantially between Phases for Black and Latinx populations and increasing between Phases for proportion of essential workers. Mortality models excluding institutional cases yielded stronger associations for age, race/ethnicity, and essential worker status.ConclusionsGeocoded home address data can allow for nuanced analyses of community disease patterns, identification of high‐risk subgroups, and exclusion of institutional cases to comprehensively reflect community risk.     

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.     

Prevalence and impact of cardiac injury on COVID‐19: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BackgroundThe exact prevalence and impact of cardiac injury in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is still controversial. Hence, we aim to investigate prevalence of cardiac injury and its impact on the outcomes in patients with COVID‐19.HypothesisCardiac injury is common and associated with higher risk of death.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MedRxiv, and EMBASE databases from December 2019 to July 15, 2020 for studies that evaluated the prevalence and impact of cardiac injury on COVID‐19. This study has been registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)‐registration number‐CRD‐42020186120.ResultsTwenty‐one studies including 6297 participants were identified. The proportions of cardiac injury were 22%, 28% among hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 or severe COVID‐19 patients, respectively. The incidences of cardiac injury in advance age (>60 years) (30%) was about two‐fold than young patients (<60 years) (15%) with COVID‐19. Severe cases (42%) have seven‐fold prevalence cardiac injury than in their non‐ severe counterparts (6%). Furthermore, cardiac injury is associated with an increased risk of all‐cause mortality in patients with COVID‐19 (OR 10.11, 95% CI 4.49–22.77). In patients with severe COVID‐19, cardiac injury is associated with an increased risk of all‐cause mortality (OR: 16.79, 95% CI: 5.52–51.02).ConclusionsThis was the first meta‐analysis exploring the prevalence and impact of cardiac injury on COVID‐19. Cardiac injury is common in hospitalized patients and advanced age and severe COVID‐19 patients prone to experience more risk of cardiac injury. Furthermore, cardiac injury is associated with increased risk of all‐cause mortality.     

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.     

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.     

Health‐seeking behaviors of patients with acute respiratory infections during the outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan,China

We conducted two surveys to evaluate the health‐seeking behaviors of individuals with acute respiratory infections (ARI) during the COVID‐19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. Among 351 participants reporting ARI (10.3%, 351/3,411), 36.5% sought medical assistance. Children were more likely to seek medical assistance than other age‐groups (66.1% vs. 28.0%‐35.1%). This population‐based study demonstrates that the majority of patients with ARI symptoms did not seek medical assistance during the COVID‐19 outbreak in Wuhan. These findings may be used to refine the estimates of disease burden and clinical severity of COVID‐19 and to plan for health resources allocation.