5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cardiovascular complications in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To the Editor The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses the most significant modern-day public health challenge since the Spanish flu of 1918, causing substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. 1 Coronavirus disease 2019 predominantly affects the respiratory system, causing severe pneumonia and respiratory distress syndrome. There is also involvement of multiple organs, and the cardiovascular system has been implicated. In a recent study to investigate characteristics and prognostic factors in 339 elderly patients with COVID-19, Wang and colleagues observed a high proportion of severe and critical cases as well as high fatality rates. 2 The cardiovascular complications recorded were acute cardiac injury (21%), arrhythmia (10.4%) and cardiac insufficiency (17.4%). However, not all cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are clearly defined by published studies and it is also not clear if these conditions are directly caused by COVID-19 or are just unspecific complications. 3 There is a need to understand the interplay between COVID-19 and its cardiovascular manifestations to assist in the optimum management of patients. In this context, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis to attempt to address the following questions: (i) what are the cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19?; (ii) what is the incidence of these complications?; and (iii) are patients with pre-existing cardiovascular morbidities more susceptible to these cardiovascular complications? The protocol for this review was registered in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020184851). The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines 4 , 5 (Supplementary Materials 1-2). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane library from 2019 to 27 May 2020 for published studies reporting on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Details of the search strategy are reported in Supplementary Material 3. The prevalence of comorbidities (pre-existing hypertension and cardiovascular disease, CVD) and incidence of cardiovascular complications across studies with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using Freeman-Tukey variance stabilising double arcsine transformation and random-effects models. STATA release MP 16 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. Seventeen retrospective cohort studies comprising of 5,815 patients with COVID-19 were included (Table 1 ; Supplementary Materials 4-5). Eleven studies were based in China, four in the USA, one in South Korea and one in the Netherlands. The average age at baseline ranged from 47 to 71 years. Table 1 Characteristics of included studies Table 1 Author, year of publication Source of data Country Dates of data collection Mean/median age (years) Male % Hospitalisation (days) No. of patients CVD complications NOS Guo, 2020 Seventh Hospital of Wuhan City China Jan - Feb 2020 58.5 48.7 16.3 187 Myocardial injury; ventricular arrhythmia 5 Wang, 2020 Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University China Jan, 2020 56.0 54.3 7.0 138 Myocardial injury; cardiac arrhythmia 4 Huang, 2020 Jin Yintan Hospital, Wuhan China Dec - Jan 2020 49.0 73.0 7.0 41 Myocardial injury 4 Zhou, 2020 Jinyintan Hospital & Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital China Dec - Jan 2020 56.0 62.0 11.0 191 Myocardial injury; HF 5 Shi,2020 Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University China Jan - Feb 2020 64.0 49.3 NR 416 Myocardial injury 6 Arentz, 2020 Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland, Washington USA Feb - March 2020 70.0 52.0 5.2 21 Cardiomyopathy 4 Chen, 2020 Tongji Hospital in Wuhan China Jan - Feb 2020 62.0 62.0 13.0 274 Myocardial injury; HF; DIC 4 Du, 2020 Hannan Hospital and Wuhan Union Hospital China Jan - Feb 2020 65.8 72.9 10.1 85 Cardiac arrest; ACS; arrhythmia; DIC 4 Wang, 2020b Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University China Jan - Feb 2020 71.0 49.0 28.0 339 Myocardial injury, arrhythmia HF 4 Cao, 2020 Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University China Jan - Feb 2020 54.0 52.0 11.0 102 Myocardial injury; arrhythmia; cardiac arrest 4 Klok, 2020 Dutch Univesity Hospitals Netherlands March - April 2020 64.0 76.0 7.0 184 PE; VTE; stroke 4 Aggarwal, 2020 UnityPoint Clinic USA March - April 2020 67.0 75.0 2.0 16 ACS; cardiac arrhythmia; HF 4 Wang, 2020c Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University and Xishui People's Hospital China Up to Feb, 2020 51.0 53.3 11.0 107 Myocardial injury 5 Hong, 2020 Yeungnam University Medical Center South Korea Up to March, 2020 55.4 38.8 7.7 98 Myocardial injury 4 Wan, 2020 Northeast Chongqing China Jan – Feb 2020 47.0 53.3 5.0 135 Myocardial injury 4 Price-Haywood, 2020 Ochsner Health in Louisiana Asia March – April, 2020 55.5 45.7 7.0 1,030 Cardiomyopathy/HF 6 Price-Haywood, 2020 Ochsner Health in Louisiana Asia March – April, 2020 53.6 37.7 6.0 2,451 Cardiomyopathy/HF 6 ACS, acute coronary syndrome; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; HF, heart failure; NOS, Newcastle Ottawa Scale; NR, not reported; PE, pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism Across 15 studies, the pooled prevalence of pre-existing hypertension (95% CI) in COVID-19 patients was 29.3% (25.5-33.4; I 2 =87%; 95% CI 79, 91%; p for heterogeneity<0.01) (Supplementary Material 6). The prevalence (95% CI) of pre-existing CVD across 16 studies was 14.6% (11.0-18.4; I 2 =91%; 95% CI 87, 94%; p for heterogeneity<0.01) (Supplementary Material 7). Over hospital stays ranging from 2 to 28 days, the pooled incidence was 17.6% (14.2-21.2; I 2 =32%; 95% CI 0, 76%; p for heterogeneity=0.20) for heart failure (HF) (n=4 studies); 16.3% (11.8-21.3; I 2 =87%; 95% CI 79, 92%; p for heterogeneity<0.01) for myocardial injury (n=11 studies); 9.3% (5.1-14.6; I 2 =78%; 95% CI 52, 90%; p for heterogeneity<0.01) for cardiac arrhythmia (n=6 studies); 6.2% (1.8-12.3) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=2 studies); 5.7% (2.7-9.6) for cardiac arrest (n=2 studies); and 5.6% (3.4-8.3) for disseminated intravascular dissemination (DIC) (n=2 studies) (Fig. 1 A). Subgroup analyses suggested that the incidence of myocardial injury was higher in older age groups and groups with a higher prevalence of pre-existing hypertension; however, the incidence of myocardial injury was similar in groups with high or low prevalence of pre-existing CVD (Fig. 1B). Over hospital stays ranging from 2 to 28 days following admission, mortality rate ranged from 0.7% to 52.4%, with a pooled rate of 15.3% (10.7-20.5). Fig. 1 (A) Incidence of cardiovascular complications in COVID-19 patients; (B) Incidence of myocardial injury in COVID-19 patients, by clinically relevant characteristics CI, confidence interval (bars); CVD, cardiovascular disease; DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; PE, pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism; *, p-value for meta-regression Fig 1 The current data based on up-to-date evidence suggests that the most common cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 are HF, myocardial injury and cardiac arrhythmias. Though the mechanisms for cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are still yet to be elucidated, the following multiple pathways have been proposed: (i) direct cardiotoxicity; (ii) systemic inflammation; (iii) myocardial demand-supply mismatch; (iv) plaque rupture and coronary thrombosis; (v) adverse effects of therapies during hospitalisation; (vi) sepsis leading to DIC; (vii) increased systemic thrombogenesis; and (viii) electrolyte imbalances. 6 , 7 Myocardial injury is reported to mainly result from direct viral involvement of cardiomyocytes and the effects of systemic inflammation. 6 Though venous thromboembolism incidence was based on a single report, patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of hypercoagulable states due to prolonged immobilisation, systemic inflammation and risk for DIC. 7 In addition to pre-existing comorbidities including CVD being associated with worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19, 8 , 9 cardiovascular complications such as myocardial injury have also been shown to be associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and fatal outcomes. 10 Myocardial injury is commonly defined as substantial elevation of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels and it has been reported that elevated troponin levels are associated with greater risk of severe disease and mortality. 10 Monitoring of markers of cardiac damage such as troponin, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide and creatine kinase during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could help in the identification of patients with possible cardiac manifestations, to enable early and more aggressive intervention. The inherent limitations of this review included the low sample sizes and methodological design of some of the studies, which was expected given the urgency to report and gain a better understanding of COVID-19; limited number of studies available, hence some of the findings were based on single reports; assays for cardiac injury and their time of assessment during hospitalisation may vary between studies, hence estimates may be biased; and the possibility of patient overlap given that the majority of studies were conducted from China and reports of duplicate publication of study participants in articles. 9 Aggregate analysis of the literature suggests that the most frequent cardiovascular complications among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are HF, myocardial injury, cardiac arrhythmias and ACS. Early identification and monitoring of cardiac complications could help in the prediction of more favourable outcomes. The causes of these cardiovascular manifestations warrant further investigation as more data becomes available. Declaration of Competing Interest None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

          Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL (18·42, 2·64–128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0–24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Terminology The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration.9 A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Developing the PRISMA Statement A 3-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed. The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Website. Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant.10 For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update11 of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol. Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper. Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available,12,13 the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)14 now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability.15 Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question16,17 and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews. The PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use) and a 4-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review. Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA Figure 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review Table 1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis From QUOROM to PRISMA The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report. Table 2 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA) The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process. Endorsement The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Website. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced18 following the style used for other reporting guidelines.19-21 The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA. Discussion The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal.22-27 In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias,22 even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence28 and its impact on the results of systematic reviews.29 Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately.30 Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review. Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness,31 diagnostic32 or prognostic questions,33 genetic associations,34 and policy-making.35 The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis.36 We have developed an explanatory document18 to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors. Like any evidence-based endeavour, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA website. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development. Note: To encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Open Medicine website and the PLoS Medicine website and is also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA website. The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper is available at the PLoS Medicine website. Supporting Information Figure S1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use) Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable template document for researchers to re-use)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Cardiovascular Implications of Fatal Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

              This case series study evaluates the association of underlying cardiovascular disease and myocardial injury on fatal outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Infect
                J Infect
                The Journal of Infection
                The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0163-4453
                1532-2742
                3 June 2020
                August 2020
                3 June 2020
                : 81
                : 2
                : e139-e141
                Affiliations
                [a ]National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [b ]Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
                [c ]Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
                [d ]Institute of Clinical Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
                [e ]Central Finland Health Care District Hospital District, Department of Medicine, Jyväskylä, Finland District, Jyväskylä, Finland
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK; Phone: +44-7539589186; Fax: +44-1174147924.
                Article
                S0163-4453(20)30345-5
                10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.068
                7832225
                32504747
                be53b7ef-3686-4d82-8ad7-3b337c8fde15
                © 2020 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                Categories
                Letter to the Editor

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article