Introduction Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also referred to as COVID-19, was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. The manifestations of COVID-19 are widely variable and range from asymptomatic infection to multi-organ failure and death. Like other viral illnesses, acute myocarditis has been reported to be associated with COVID-19 infection. However, guidelines for the diagnosis of COVID-19 myocarditis have not been established. Methods Using a combination of search terms in the PubMed/Medline, Ovid Medline and the Cochrane Library databases and manual searches on Google Scholar and the bibliographies of articles identified, we reviewed all cases reported in the English language citing myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection. Results Fourteen records comprising a total of fourteen cases that report myocarditis/myopericarditis secondary to COVID-19 infection were identified. There was a male predominance (58%), with the median age of the cases described being 50.4 years. The majority of patients did not have a previously identified comorbid condition (50%), but of those with a past medical history, hypertension was most prevalent (33%). Electrocardiogram findings were variable, and troponin was elevated in 91% of cases. Echocardiography was performed in 83% of cases reduced function was identified in 60%. Endotracheal intubation was performed in the majority of cases. Glucocorticoids were most commonly used in treatment of myocarditis (58%). Majority of patients survived to discharge (81%) and 85% of those that received steroids survived to discharge. Conclusion Guidelines for diagnosis and management of COVID-19 myocarditis have not been established and our knowledge on management is rapidly changing. The use of glucocorticoids and other agents including IL-6 inhibitors, IVIG and colchicine in COVID-19 myocarditis is debatable. In our review, there appears to be favorable outcomes related to myocarditis treated with steroid therapy. However, until larger scale studies are conducted, treatment approaches have to be made on an individualized case-by-case basis.
Background: Risk stratifying patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major unmet need. The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stages as an approach to identify patients at risk for in-hospital mortality remains under investigation. We studied the utility of the SCAI stages and further explored the impact of hemodynamic congestion on clinical outcomes. Methods: The CS Working Group registry includes patients with CS from 8 medical centers enrolled between 2016 and 2019. Patients were classified by the maximum SCAI stage (B–E) reached during their hospital stay according to drug and device utilization. In-hospital mortality was evaluated for association with SCAI stages and hemodynamic congestion. Results: Of the 1414 patients with CS, the majority were due to decompensated heart failure (50%) or myocardial infarction (MI; 35%). In-hospital mortality was 31% for the total cohort, but higher among patients with MI (41% versus 26%, MI versus heart failure, P <0.0001). Risk for in-hospital mortality was associated with increasing SCAI stage (odds ratio [95% CI], 3.25 [2.63–4.02]) in both MI and heart failure cohorts. Hemodynamic data was available in 1116 (79%) patients. Elevated biventricular filling pressures were common among patients with CS, and right atrial pressure was associated with increased mortality and higher SCAI Stage. Conclusions: Our findings support an association between the proposed SCAI staging system and in-hospital mortality among patient with heart failure and MI. We further identify that venous congestion is common and identifies patients with CS at high risk for in-hospital mortality. These findings provide may inform future management protocols and clinical studies.
Background: In ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), infarct size correlates directly with heart failure and mortality. Preclinical testing has shown that, in comparison with reperfusion alone, mechanically unloading the left ventricle (LV) before reperfusion reduces infarct size and that 30 minutes of unloading activates a cardioprotective program that limits reperfusion injury. The DTU-STEMI pilot trial (Door-To-Unload in STEMI Pilot Trial) represents the first exploratory study testing whether LV unloading and delayed reperfusion in patients with STEMI without cardiogenic shock is safe and feasible. Methods: In a multicenter, prospective, randomized exploratory safety and feasibility trial, we assigned 50 patients with anterior STEMI to LV unloading by using the Impella CP followed by immediate reperfusion (U-IR) versus delayed reperfusion after 30 minutes of unloading (U-DR). The primary safety outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 30 days. Efficacy parameters included the assessment of infarct size by using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Results: All patients completed the U-IR (n=25) or U-DR (n=25) protocols with respective mean door-to-balloon times of 72 versus 97 minutes. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rates were not statistically different between the U-IR versus U-DR groups (8% versus 12%, respectively, P =0.99). In comparison with the U-IR group, delaying reperfusion in the U-DR group did not affect 30-day mean infarct size measured as a percentage of LV mass (15±12% versus 13±11%, U-IR versus U-DR, P =0.53). Conclusions: We report that LV unloading using the Impella CP device with a 30-minute delay before reperfusion is feasible within a relatively short time period in anterior STEMI. The DTU-STEMI pilot trial did not identify prohibitive safety signals that would preclude proceeding to a larger pivotal study of LV unloading before reperfusion. An appropriately powered pivotal trial comparing LV unloading before reperfusion to the current standard of care is required. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03000270.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.