BACKGROUND Early studies suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of cardiac arrhythmias. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection may cause injury to cardiac myocytes and increase arrhythmia risk.OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of cardiac arrest and arrhythmias including incident atrial fibrillation (AF), bradyarrhythmias, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) in a large urban population hospitalized for COVID-19. We also evaluated correlations between the presence of these arrhythmias and mortality.METHODS We reviewed the characteristics of all patients with COVID-19 admitted to our center over a 9-week period. Throughout hospitalization, we evaluated the incidence of cardiac arrests, arrhythmias, and inpatient mortality. We also used logistic regression to evaluate age, sex, race, body mass index, prevalent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and intensive care unit (ICU) status as potential risk factors for each arrhythmia.RESULTS Among 700 patients (mean age 50 6 18 years; 45% men; 71% African American; 11% received ICU care), there were 9 cardiac arrests, 25 incident AF events, 9 clinically significant bradyarrhythmias, and 10 NSVTs. All cardiac arrests occurred in patients admitted to the ICU. In addition, admission to the ICU was associated with incident AF (odds ratio [OR] 4.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66-13.18) and NSVT (OR 8.92; 95% CI 1.73-46.06) after multivariable adjustment. Also, age and incident AF (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.09) and prevalent heart failure and bradyarrhythmias (OR 9.75; 95% CI 1.95-48.65) were independently associated. Only cardiac arrests were associated with acute in-hospital mortality.CONCLUSION Cardiac arrests and arrhythmias are likely the consequence of systemic illness and not solely the direct effects of COVID-19 infection.

No abstract

Background: Studies report hypercoagulability in coronavirus disease 2019 , leading many institutions to escalate anticoagulation intensity for thrombosis prophylaxis.Objective: To determine the bleeding risk with various intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viral illnesses (ORVI).Patients/Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared the incidence of major bleeding in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) within a single health system with COVID-19 versus ORVI. In the COVID-19 cohort, we assessed the effect of anticoagulation intensity received on ICU admission on bleeding risk. We performed a secondary analysis with anticoagulation intensity as a time-varying covariate to reflect dose changes after ICU admission.Results: Four hundred and forty-three and 387 patients were included in the COVID-19 and ORVI cohorts, respectively. The hazard ratio of major bleeding for the COVID-19 cohort relative to the ORVI cohort was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.86). In COVID-19 patients, an inverse-probability treatment weighted model found therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation on ICU admission had an adjusted hazard ratio of bleeding of 1.55 (95% CI: 0.88-2.73) compared with standard prophylacticintensity anticoagulation. However, when anticoagulation was assessed as a timevarying covariate and adjusted for other risk factors for bleeding, the adjusted hazard ratio for bleeding on therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation compared with standard thromboprophylaxis was 2.59 (95% CI: 1.20-5.57). Conclusions:Critically ill patients with COVID-19 had a similar bleeding risk as ORVI patients. When accounting for changes in anticoagulation that occurred in COVID-19 patients, therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding compared with standard thromboprophylaxis.

Background Glucocorticoid treatment remains the cornerstone of therapy for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) myocarditis, but data supporting the use of additional immunotherapy for steroid refractory cases remains limited. We investigate the safety and efficacy of infliximab in patients with ICI myocarditis who are refractory to corticosteroids. Additionally, we highlight the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach in the care for these complex patients. Methods We retrospectively identified consecutive patients who developed ICI myocarditis at our institution between January 2017 and January 2020. Baseline characteristics, laboratory data and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received infliximab and those who did not. Results Of a total of 11 patients who developed ICI myocarditis, 4 were treated with infliximab. Aside from age, there were no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics between the two groups including total number of ICI doses received and duration from initial ICI dose to onset of symptoms. The time to troponin normalization was 58 vs. 151.5 days (p = 0.25). The duration of prednisone taper was longer in the infliximab group (90 vs. 150 days p = 0.32). All patients survived initial hospital admission. Over a median follow-up period of 287 days, two of the 4 patients died from sepsis 2 and 3 months after initial treatment of their myocarditis; one of these patients was on a steroid taper and the other patient had just completed a steroid taper. Conclusions Infliximab, despite its black box warning in patients with heart failure, may be a safe and effective treatment for ICI myocarditis.

No abstract