Severe Post-COVID-19 dysautonomia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of dysautonomia as a consequence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; or COVID-19) is becoming more prevalent. We have seen evidence in several post-COVID patients and in the literature of varying degrees of autonomic dysfunction. Symptoms, among others, include inappropriate tachycardia, sweating, anxiety, insomnia and blood pressure variability from the effects of excessive catecholamine, as well as cognitive impairment, fatigue, headaches and orthostatic intolerance from decreased brain perfusion. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of severe dysautonomia in a previously healthy 27-year-old runner. About five weeks after her initial mild COVID-19 infection, the patient began to develop weakness, which progressed into severe post-exertional fatigue, slowed cognition, headaches, blurred vision and generalized body aches. She also endorsed palpitations, especially when getting up from a seated or lying position as well as with mild exertion. She became reliant on her husband for help with her activities of daily living. Exam was significant for orthostasis; laboratory workup unremarkable. Over the following months, the patient's symptoms have improved slowly with fluid and sodium intake, compression stockings and participating in a graduated exercise program. CONCLUSIONS: Dysautonomia as a consequence of infection with COVID-19 is becoming increasingly discussed, especially as more patients recover from COVID-19. This is a case of a non-hospitalized patient with a mild initial presentation and significant, debilitating dysautonomia symptoms. More research on its pathophysiology, especially in relation to a precedent viral insult, as well as its treatment, is needed.

An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients are undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which often involves assessment of coronary artery disease ischemic burden. The safety and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress agents in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has not been established. METHODS: Patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2) on echocardiography who underwent vasodilator stress SPECT MPI at two centers were identified. Patients with aortic valve intervention prior to MPI or who underwent concurrent exercise during stress testing were excluded. AS patients were matched to controls without AS based on age, gender, BMI, ejection fraction, and stress agent. Symptoms, serious adverse events, hemodynamic response, and correlation to invasive angiography were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 95 cases were identified with 45% undergoing regadenoson, 31% dipyridamole, and 24% adenosine stress. A significant change in systolic blood pressure (BP), cases vs controls, was observed with adenosine [-17.9 ± 20.1 vs -2.6 ± 24.9 P = .03)], with a trend toward significance with regadenoson [-16.8 ± 20.3 vs -9.4 ± 17.9 (P = .08)] and dipyridamole [-17.8 ± 20.6 vs -9.0 ± 12.1 (P = .05)]. The change in heart rate was significantly different only for adenosine [5.3 ± 16.8 vs 14.2 ± 10.8 (P = .04)]. Overall, 45% of cases vs 24% of controls (P = .004) had a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP. Age, BMI, and resting systolic BP were related to a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP on univariate analysis, although only higher resting systolic BP was a predictor on multivariate analysis. In 33 patients who underwent angiography, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress MPI was 77%, 69%, and 73%, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred in the severe AS patients. CONCLUSION: Severe AS patients are more likely to have a hemodynamically significant decrease in systolic BP with vasodilator stress. There were no serious adverse events in this severe AS cohort with good diagnostic performance of MPI compared to angiography.

Influence of coronary dominance on coronary artery calcification burden.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of coronary artery dominance on observed coronary artery calcification burden in outpatients presenting for coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). METHODS: A 12-month retrospective review was performed of all CCTAs at a single institution. Coronary arterial dominance, Agatston score and presence or absence of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), diabetes and smoking were recorded. Dominance groups were compared in terms of calcium score adjusted for covariates using analysis of covariance based on ranks. Only covariates observed to be significant independent predictors of the relevant outcome were included in each analysis. All statistical tests were conducted at the two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: 1223 individuals, 618 women and 605 men were included, mean age 60 years (24-93 years). Right coronary dominance was observed in 91.7% (n = 1109), left dominance in 8% (n = 98), and codominance in 1.3% (n = 16). The distribution of patients among Agatston score severity categories significantly differed between codominant and left (p = 0.008), and codominant and right (p = 0.022) groups, with higher prevalence of either zero or severe CAC in the codominant patients. There was no significant difference in Agatston score between dominance groups. In the subset of individuals with coronary artery calcification, Agatston score was significantly higher in codominant versus left dominant patients (mean Agatston score 595 ± 520 vs. mean 289 ± 607, respectively; p = 0.049), with a trend towards higher scores in comparison to the right-dominant group (p = 0.093). Significance was not maintained upon adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: While the distribution of Agatston score severity categories differed in codominant versus right- or left-dominant patients, there was no significant difference in Agatston score based on coronary dominance pattern in our cohort. Reporting and inclusion of codominant subsets in larger investigations may elucidate whether codominant anatomy is associated with differing risk.