Background: We experienced a high incidence of pulmonary barotrauma among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at our institution. In current study, we sought to estimate the incidence, clinical outcomes, and characteristics of barotrauma among COVID-19 patients receiving invasive and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Methodology: We conducted this retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen support or positive airway pressure for ARDS who presented to our tertiary care center from March through November, 2020. Results: A total of 353 patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 232patients who required heated high-flow nasal cannula, continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure were assigned to non-invasive group. The remaining 121 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation and were assigned to invasive group. Of the 353 patients, 32 patients (65.6% males) with a mean age of 63 ± 11 years developed barotrauma in the form of either subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, or pneumomediastinum. The incidence of barotrauma was 4.74% (11/232) and 17.35% (21/121) in non-invasive group and invasive group, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 22 (15.7 −33.0) days with an overall mortality of 62.5% (n = 20). Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 ARDS have a high incidence rate of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma should be considered in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who exhibit worsening of their respiratory disease as it is likely associated with a high mortality risk. Utilizing lung-protective ventilation strategies may reduce the risk of barotrauma.

Hydroxychloroquine, initially used as an antimalarial, is used as an immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory agent for the management of autoimmune and rheumatic diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus. Lately, there has been interest in its potential efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, with several speculated mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to elaborate on the mechanisms surrounding hydroxychloroquine. The review is an in-depth analysis of the antimalarial, immunomodulatory, and antiviral mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine, with detailed and novel pictorial explanations. The mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine are related to potential cardiotoxic manifestations and demonstrate potential adverse effects when used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Finally, current literature associated with hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 has been analyzed to interrelate the mechanisms, adverse effects, and use of hydroxychloroquine in the current pandemic. Currently, there is insufficient evidence about the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES 1. HCQ, initially an antimalarial agent, is used as an immunomodulatory agent for managing several autoimmune diseases, for which its efficacy is linked to inhibiting lysosomal antigen processing, MHC-II antigen presentation, and TLR functions. 2. HCQ is generally well-tolerated although severe life-threatening adverse effects including cardiomyopathy and conduction defects have been reported. 3. HCQ use in COVID-19 should be discouraged outside clinical trials under strict medical supervision.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to cause worse outcomes in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease, especially in patients with acute cardiac injury, which is determined by elevated levels of high-sensitivity troponin. There is a paucity of data on the impact of congestive heart failure (CHF) on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods We conducted a literature search of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases from 11/1/2019 till 06/07/2020, and identified all relevant studies reporting cardiovascular comorbidities, cardiac biomarkers, disease severity, and survival. Pooled data from the selected studies was used for metanalysis to identify the impact of risk factors and cardiac biomarker elevation on disease severity and/or mortality. Results We collected pooled data on 5,967 COVID-19 patients from 20 individual studies. We found that both non-survivors and those with severe disease had an increased risk of acute cardiac injury and cardiac arrhythmias, our pooled relative risk (RR) was — 8.52 (95% CI 3.63–19.98) (p<0.001); and 3.61 (95% CI 2.03–6.43) (p=0.001), respectively. Mean difference in the levels of Troponin-I, CK-MB, and NT-proBNP was higher in deceased and severely infected patients. The RR of in-hospital mortality was 2.35 (95% CI 1.18–4.70) (p=0.022) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.12–2.05) (p=0.008) among patients who had pre-existing CHF and hypertension, respectively. Conclusion Cardiac involvement in COVID-19 infection appears to significantly adversely impact patient prognosis and survival. Pre-existence of CHF, and high cardiac biomarkers like NT-pro BNP and CK-MB levels in COVID-19 patients correlates with worse outcomes.

Background Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT. Methodology We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis. Results We report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51–2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64–1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62–2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70–1.70; p = 0.48) for mortality. Conclusions DOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.

Background: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT.Methodology: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis.Results: We report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51–2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64–1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62–2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70–1.70; p =0.48) for mortality.Conclusions: DOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.