Cardiac complications during the active phase of COVID-19: review of the current evidence

The interplay between Sars-Cov-2 infection related cardiovascular diseases and depression. Common mechanisms, shared symptoms

In 2020 the World Health organization announced a pandemic due to the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease 19. Pneumonia was the most common manifestation of the Sars-Cov-2 infection, however, clinical papers describe Sars-Cov-2 associated cardiovascular pathologies, such as ACS, myopericarditis, cardiomyopathies, dysrhythmias, as leading causes of increased morbidity and mortality. The short and long term prognosis of Sars-Cov-2-related cardiovascular diseases was defined not only by the disease severity itself but also by associated conditions and complications, among which mental health issues (stress, depression and anxiety) have a negative impact. The interplay between Sars-Cov-2 infection, cardiovascular disease and depression may be explained by hyperinflammation, unhealthy lifestyle and inter-organ communication, mediated by extracellular vesicles (EV) and non-coding MicroRNA (miRNA). The long Covid syndrome is characterized with orthostatic hypotension, impaired cardiac and cerebral perfusion, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), syncope, chest pain, dyspnea, palpitation, chronic fatigue syndrome, 'brain fog', memory, cognitive and sleep difficulties, depression and anxiety. From a clinical point of view these symptoms may be considered as common symptoms representing not only a cardiac but also a neurological/psychiatric problem. Consequently assessment of these symptoms are of paramount importance. Due to their complexity, management of these patients requires multidisciplinary care.

Cardiovascular Complications of COVID-19: A Scoping Review of Evidence

This scoping review sought to identify the nature and extent of clinical evidence regarding the acute and long-term cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19. Forty-nine studies published between 2020 and 2023 were selected for review. The studies were divided into two groups. The referential group included 22 studies. The second group of 27 studies was used for a detailed review to assess the strength of the evidence. The aggregate evidence indicates that the most common cardiac complications associated with COVID-19 include but are not limited to acute pericarditis, acute myocardial injury, acute myocarditis, various arrhythmias, microvascular angiopathy, left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, acute cardiac injury, and acute coronary syndrome. Clinical and epidemiological implications of the findings are investigated, and future research recommendations are proposed.

Evaluation of the changes in electrocardiographic ventricular repolarization parameters after COVID-19 recovery in hemodialysis patients

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has cardiac manifestations. Data about electrocardiogram (ECG) changes after COVID-19 recovery is limited in hemodialysis patients. We aimed to investigate the changes in ventricular repolarization parameters after COVID-19 recovery in hemodialysis patients.

METHODS

Fifty-five hemodialysis patients who recovered from COVID-19 infection were included. QT interval, Tp-e interval, corrected QT (QTc), QTc dispersion, and Tp-e dispersion values were determined on the patients' ECGs, taken before COVID-19 and at least 1 month after recovery. The patients' data before COVID-19 infection and after recovery were compared.

RESULTS

It was found that longest QTc (QTcmax) and QTc dispersion values after recovery were prolonged compared with pre-infection period (427 ± 28 ms vs. 455 ± 26 ms, p = 0.000 and 39 ± 16 ms vs. 65 ± 20 ms, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

In our hemodialysis patients, ventricular repolarization parameters increased after COVİD-19 recovery. In hemodialysis patients, already predisposed to arrhythmic deaths, arrhythmia risk after COVİD-19 recovery may become more pronounced.

Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

BACKGROUND

The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care.

METHODS

A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined.

CONCLUSIONS

The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

Atrial Fibrillation in the Setting of Acute Pneumonia: Not a Secondary Arrhythmia

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the setting of critically ill patients. Pneumonia, and in particular community-acquired pneumonia, is one of the most common causes of illness and hospital admission worldwide. This article aims to review the association between AF and acute diseases, with specific attention to pneumonia, from the pathophysiology to its clinical significance. Even though the relationship between pneumonia and AF has been known for years, it was once considered a transient bystander. In recent years there has been growing knowledge on the clinical significance of this arrhythmia in acute clinical settings, in which it holds a prognostic role which is not so different as compared to that of the so-called "primary" AF. AF is a distinct entity even in the setting of pneumonia, and acute critical illnesses in general, and it should therefore be managed with a guidelines-oriented approach, including prescription of anticoagulants in patients at thromboembolic risk, always considering patients' individuality. More data on the significance of the arrhythmia in this setting will help clinicians to give patients the best possible care.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review of literature

Objective

Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases. While veno‐venous extracorporeal life support (V‐V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID‐19 patients.

Methods

PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID‐19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow‐up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation‐to‐cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors.

Results

Twenty‐eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS‐only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID‐19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7–57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V‐V ECLS, 4.7% on veno‐arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V‐V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9–16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V‐V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy‐right ventricular assist device.

Conclusion

MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID‐19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID‐19.

Pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Another Pebble in the Mosaic of Long COVID?

With the emerging success of the COVID-19 vaccination programs, the incidence of acute COVID-19 will decrease. However, given the high number of people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection and recovered, we will be faced with a significant number of patients with persistent symptoms even months after their COVID-19 infection. In this setting, long COVID and its cardiovascular manifestations, including pericarditis, need to become a top priority for healthcare systems as a new chronic disease process. Concerning the relationship between COVID-19 and pericardial diseases, pericarditis appears to be common in the acute infection but rare in the postacute period, while small pericardial effusions may be relatively common in the postacute period of COVID-19. Here, we reported a series of 7 patients developing pericarditis after a median of 20 days from clinical and virological recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We excluded specific identifiable causes of pericarditis, hence we speculate that these cases can be contextualized within the clinical spectrum of long COVID. All our patients were treated with a combination of colchicine and either ASA or NSAIDs, but four of them did not achieve a clinical response. When switched to glucocorticoids, these four patients recovered with no recurrence during drug tapering. Based on this observation and on the latency of pericarditis occurrence (a median of 20 days after a negative nasopharyngeal swab), could be suggested that post-COVID pericarditis may be linked to ongoing inflammation sustained by the persistence of viral nucleic acid without virus replication in the pericardium. Therefore, glucocorticoids may be a suitable treatment option in patients not responding or intolerant to conventional therapy and who require to counteract the pericardial inflammatory component rather than direct an acute viral injury to the pericardial tissue.

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study

For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute COVID-19 were asked to participate, of whom 108 (mean age 55.6 ± 10.1 years, 45.4% female) consented. The patients were assigned to three groups according to the time of referral and initial disease severity (severe acute; severe after interval; mild after interval). The primary outcome was dyspnea. Secondary outcomes included other respiratory disease symptoms, physical capacity, lung function, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, patients rated the overall effectiveness of PR and their subjective change in health status. At the end of PR, we detected improvements with large effect sizes in exertional dyspnea, physical capacity, QoL, fatigue, and depression in the overall group. Other parameters changed with small to medium effect sizes. PR was effective after acute COVID-19 in all three groups analyzed.