No abstract

Background Abnormal laboratory findings are common in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of the level of some laboratory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), creatinine, leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and platelet count) on the severity and outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We collected the articles published before May 26, 2020. We gathered the laboratory factors in groups of patients with COVID-19, and studied the relation between level of these factors with severity and outcome of the disease. Results Mean CRP level, creatinine, hemoglobin, and the leukocytes count in the critically ill patients were significantly higher than those of the other groups (non-critical patients); mean CRP = 54.81 mg/l, mean creatinine = 86.82 μmol/l, mean hemoglobin = 144.05 g/l, and mean leukocyte count = 7.41 × 109. The lymphocyte count was higher in patients with mild/moderate disease (mean: 1.32 × 109) and in the invasive ventilation group (mean value of 0.72 × 109), but it was considerably lower than those of the other two groups. The results showed that the platelet count was higher in critically ill patients (mean value of 205.96 × 109). However, the amount was lower in the invasive ventilation group compared with the other groups (mean level = 185.67 × 109). Conclusion With increasing disease severity, the leukocyte count and the level of CRP increase significantly and the lymphocyte count decreases. There seems to be a significant relation between platelet level, hemoglobin, and creatinine level with severity of the disease. However, more studies are required to confirm this.

Since December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the global population, and one of the major causes of mortality in infected patients is cardiovascular diseases (CVDs).For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for all articles published by April 2, 2020. Observational studies (cohort and cross-sectional designs) were included in this meta-analysis if they reported at least one of the related cardiovascular symptoms or laboratory findings in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we did not use any language, age, diagnostic COVID-19 criteria, and hospitalization criteria restrictions. The following keywords alone or in combination with OR and AND operators were used for searching the literature: "Wuhan coronavirus", "COVID-19", "coronavirus disease 2019", "SARS-CoV-2", "2019 novel coronavirus" "cardiovascular disease", "CVD", "hypertension", "systolic pressure", "dyspnea", "hemoptysis", and "arrhythmia". Study characteristics, exposure history, laboratory findings, clinical manifestations, and comorbidities were extracted from the retrieved articles. Sixteen studies were selected which involved 4754 patients, including 2103 female and 2639 male patients. Among clinical cardiac manifestations, chest pain and arrhythmia were found to have the highest incidence proportion. In addition, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and D-dimer levels were the most common cardiovascular laboratory findings. Finally, hypertension, chronic heart failure, and coronary heart disease were the most frequently reported comorbidities. The findings suggest that COVID-19 can cause various cardiovascular symptoms and laboratory findings. It is also worth noting that cardiovascular comorbidities like hypertension have a notable prevalence among COVID-19 patients.

Background Serum vitamin D levels may have a protective role against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Studies have shown that deficiency in vitamin D may be a significant risk factor for poor outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcome and clinical condition of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection considering serum vitamin D levels. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 202 COVID-19 patients without known cardiovascular disease (reduced ejection fraction, uncontrolled arrhythmia, pericardial effusion, cardiac block, valvular disease, or hypertension) were included. Patients were divided into three groups of insufficient (< 30 ng/mL), normal (30 to 50 ng/mL), and high (> 50 ng/mL) serum vitamin D levels. Clinical outcome was defined as severe if invasive respiratory intervention and ICU admission was required. Results The patients were divided into three groups based on their vitamin D level: 127 cases in the insufficient vitamin D group, 53 cases in the normal vitamin D group, and 22 cases in the high vitamin D group. The mean age of the population study was 56 years. Thirty-four patients had severe clinical outcomes. The distribution of this group was as follows: 21 patients in the insufficient vitamin D group (16.5%), eight patients in the normal vitamin D group (15.1%), and five patients in the high vitamin D group (22.7%); P = 0.74. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of mortality rate (P = 0.46). Moreover, the mean of leukocytes (mean ± SD = 6873.5 ± 4236.2), ESR (mean ± SD = 38.42 ± 26.7), and CPK-MB (mean ± SD = 63 ± 140.7) were higher in the insufficient vitamin D group, but it was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion The finding of the present study showed that vitamin D could not make a significant difference in cardiovascular systems, laboratory results, and severity of the disease in COVID-19 patients.

Background Rapid diagnosis of coronary artery disease has an important role in saving patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate if aVR lead ST-elevation (STE) can predict LM/3VD, left main (LM) disease, and three-vessel disease (3VD), outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 45 qualified studies were entered. Scopus, Pub med, Google scholar, Web of science, Cochrane library were searched on 12 November 2021. Results This systematic review includes 52,175 participants. In patients with STE, the total odds ratios for LM, 3VD, and LM/3VD were 5.48 (95% CI 3.88, 7.76), 2.21 (95% CI 1.78, 3.27), and 6.21 (95% CI 3.49, 11,6), respectively. STE in lead aVR was linked with in-hospital death (OR = 2.99, CI 1.90, 4.72) and 90-day mortality (OR = 3.09, CI 2.17, 4.39), despite the fact that it could not predict 30-day mortality (OR = 1.11, CI 0.95, 1.31). The STE > 1 mm subgroup had the highest sensitivity for LM (0.9, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98), whereas the STE > 0.5 mm (0.76, 95% CI 0.61, 0.90) subgroup had the highest sensitivity for LM/3VD. The appropriate cut-off point with highest specificity for LM/3VD and LM was STE > 1.5 mm (0.80, 95% CI 0.75, 0.85) and STE > 0.5 mm, respectively (0.75, 95% CI 0.67, 0.84, I2 = 97%). Conclusion The odds of LM and LM/3VD were higher than 3VD in ACS patients with STE in lead aVR. Also, STE > 0.5 mm was the best cut-off point to screen LM/3VD, whereas for LM diagnosis, STE > 1 mm had the highest sensitivity. Furthermore, LM/3VD had a higher overall specificity than LM.