Describing heart rate variability in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation during hospitalization for COVID‐19

Abstract

Introduction Myriad cardiovascular manifestations have been reported with COVID‐19. We previously reported that failure of PR interval shortening with increasing heart rate (HR) in patients with COVID‐19 is associated with adverse outcomes. Here, we report on heart rate variability (HRV) and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (cAF) hospitalized for COVID‐19. Methods A retrospective review of admitted COVID‐19 patients with cAF between 1 March 2020 to 30 June 2020 was performed. HRV in cAF was compared during pre‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19 admissions; we selected pre‐COVID‐19 ECGs with HRs that were within 10 beats per minute of the COVID‐19 ECGs. Mean HR and each RR interval were recorded. Time‐domain measurements of HR variability were then calculated (SDSD, RMSSD, pNN50). Clinical outcomes during COVID‐19 were correlated to indices of HRV. Results A total of 184 ECGs (95 pre‐COVID‐19, 89 COVID‐19) from 38 cAF in‐patients were included. Mean age 78.6 ± 11.4 years, male 44.7%. The mean number of ECGs analyzed per patient pre‐COVID‐19 was 2.50 and during COVID‐19 was 2.34. Comparing pre‐COVID‐19 versus COVID‐19 ECGs showed: mean HR (95.9 ± 24.3 vs. 101.6 ± 22.8 BPM; P = .10), SDSD (109.0 ± 50.6 vs. 90.3 ± 37.2 ms; P < .01), RMSSD (184.1 ± 80.4 vs. 147.3 ± 59.8 ms; P < .01), pNN50 (73.8 ± 16.3 vs. 65.6 ± 16.6%; P < .01). Patients who had a smaller pNN50 during a COVID‐19 admission had increased mortality (50.0% vs. 14.3%; log‐rank test P = .02). Conclusion In patients with cAF, the HRV was reduced during COVID‐19 compared with prior illnesses at similar average heart rates. Patients with the most depressed HRV as measured by pNN50 had an associated increase in mortality compared with patients whose HRV was preserved.

Autonomic Dysfunction during Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review

“…After removing duplicates, 1585 results remained and were evaluated for title and abstract check. Therefore, 65 reports were considered in the full-text review stage, and 20 of those were included in the systematic review [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48], while 45 reports were excluded: 2 papers written in Russian [49,50], 5 conference papers [51][52][53][54][55], 3 comments [56][57][58], 4 case reports or case series [59][60][61][62], 2 literature reviews [63,64], 1 study protocol [65], 12 studies that did not perform a formal evaluation of autonomic functions [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]…”

“…Finally, 22 studies were included in this systematic review [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]94,95]. Details regarding the selection process are available in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1).…”

“…Reports assessed as eligible-Refs. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. Reports added from other sources-Refs.…”

“…Studies included in the systematic review-Refs. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]94,95]. Abbreviations: COVID-19, Coronavirus disease 2019.…”

“…All the studies included in this review were observational: five with a cross-sectional design [31,36,40,46,47]; nine retrospective studies, including four case-control studies [37,41,44,94], two cohort studies [30,43], and three pre-post studies [33,35,95]; eight prospective studies that included seven cohort studies [29,32,34,38,39,42,45] and one pre-post study [48].…”