In-Hospital Outcomes of COVID-19 Associated Myocarditis (from a Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database Study).

The prevalence of COVID-19 infection-related myocarditis, its in-hospital cardiovascular outcomes, and its impact on hospital cost and stay at national level are not well studied in the literature. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database from 2020 was queried to identify patients with COVID-19 and myocarditis versus those without myocarditis. Cardiovascular outcomes and resource utilization were studied among cohorts with COVID-19, with and without myocarditis, using descriptive statistics, multivariate regression matching, and propensity score matching using STATA version 17. Of 1,678,995 patients, 3,565 (0.21%) had COVID-19 with myocarditis, and 1,675,355 (99.78%) had COVID-19 without myocarditis. On multivariate regression analysis, we found higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.9) in patients with myocarditis than in those without myocarditis, in addition to higher odds of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.4), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.9), heart failure (aOR 2.77, 95% CI 2.3 to 3.4), cardiogenic shock (aOR 10.2, 95% CI 7.9 to 13), myocardial infarction (aOR 5.74, 95% CI 4.5 to 7.3), and use of mechanical circulatory support (aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.9). The propensity-matched cohort also favored similar outcomes. In conclusion, patients with COVID-19 and myocarditis had worse clinical outcomes, having a higher rate of in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events with longer length of hospital stay, and higher hospitalization costs. Large prospective trials are necessary to validate these findings with diagnostic measures, including biopsy and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the extent of myocardial involvement.

Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgical replacement for tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis. However, utilization of TAVI for aortic stenosis in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) compared to TAV remains controversial. METHODS: We queried online databases with various keywords to identify relevant articles. We compared major cardiovascular events and procedural outcomes using a random effect model to calculate odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included a total of 22 studies comprising 189,693 patients (BAV 12,669 vs. TAV 177,024). In the pooled analysis, there were no difference in TAVI for BAV vs. TAV for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), vascular complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), coronary occlusion, annulus rupture, and reintervention/reoperation between the groups. The incidence of stroke (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.1-1.39), paravalvular leak (PVLR) (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.61), and the need for pacemaker (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) was less in the TAV group compared to the BAV group, while incidence of life-threatening bleeding was higher in the TAV group. Subgroup analysis mirrored pooled outcomes except for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: The use of TAVI for the treatment of aortic stenosis in selective BAV appears to be safe and effective.