The incidence of takotsubo stress cardiomyopathy (TSCM) in males is low compared with females. Gender-based differences in clinical outcomes of TSCM are not well characterized. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze whether gender-based differences are observed in TSCM clinical outcomes. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library database, and Web of Science was performed from inception to June 20, 2022, for studies comparing the clinical outcomes between male and female patients with TSCM. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital all-cause mortality and cardiogenic shock. The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, receipt of mechanical ventilation, intra-aortic balloon pump, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia, and left ventricular thrombus. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). Heterogenicity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index. Twelve observational studies involving 51,213 patients (4,869 males and 46,344 females) were included in the meta-analysis. Male gender was associated with statistically significant higher in-hospital all-cause mortality compared with females in patients with TSCM (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.67, p <0.001). The rate of cardiogenic shock was significantly higher in males with TSCM compared with females (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.12, p <0.001). Our meta-analysis showed a difference in the clinical outcomes of TSCM between men and women. Male gender was associated with a two-fold greater in-hospital all-cause mortality risk compared with female gender. The higher mortality risk associated with male gender deserves further study, particularly whether it represents later recognition of the condition and disparities in treatments.
Shock, Cardiogenic , Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy , Female , Humans , Male , Incidence , Sex Characteristics , Sex Factors , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology
Importance There are conflicting data regarding the safety of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) medications in hypertensive patients who are susceptible to COVID-19. Objective Our study assesses the association between COVID-19 severity and mortality and the use of ACEIs/ARBs among hospitalized patients with hypertension. Research design, setting, and participants This was a retrospective cohort study. Using the EPIC system of Beaumont Health, Dearborn, Michigan, we identified 5490 patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the eight Beaumont hospitals. After excluding subjects who have no hypertension and those with missing data, we included 2129 COVID-19 patients who have hypertension. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the association between history of ACEI/ARB use, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and COVID-19 mortality. Exposure Exposure refers to the use of ACEIs/ARBs as documented in the medical records before admission to the hospitals. Main outcome The main outcome was 30-day COVID-19 mortality and ICU admission rates. Results There were 1281 subjects (60%) with prior ACEI/ARB use and 848 subjects (40%) with no ACEI/ARB use. There was no significant association between ICU admission and the use of ACEIs/ARBs (odds ratio {OR} = 0.95, 95% CI = {0.76, 1.19}, p-value = 0.6). Although the unadjusted logistic regression model demonstrated a statistically significant association between history of ACEI/ARB use and COVID-19 mortality (odds ratio = 1.31, 95% CI = {1.05, 1.66}, p-value = 0.02), the adjusted logistic regression model failed to show this statistically significant association (odds ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = {0.93, 1.54}, p-value = 0.14). Moreover, we were not able to reveal a statistically significant association between 30-day COVID-19 survival and prior use of ACEI/ARB in the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio {HR} = 1.11, 95% CI = {0.91, 1.40}, p-value = 0.14). Conclusion In this large retrospective study, we conclude that there was no statistically significant association between prior history of ACEI/ARB use and COVID-19 ICU admission rates or mortality in hypertensive patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Myocarditis and pericarditis are inflammatory conditions affecting the myocardium and pericardium, respectively. They are caused by infectious and non-infectious conditions, including autoimmune disorders, drugs, and toxins. Vaccine-induced myocarditis has been reported with viral vaccines, including influenza and smallpox. The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has shown great efficacy against symptomatic, severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), hospital admissions, and deaths. The US FDA issued an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals ≥ five years. However, concerns were raised after reports of new cases of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, especially among adolescents and young adults. Most cases developed symptoms after receiving the second dose. Here, we present a case of a previously healthy 34-year-old male who developed sudden and severe chest pain a week after the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Cardiac catheterization showed no angiographically obstructive coronary artery disease but it revealed intramyocardial bridging. This case report demonstrates that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can be associated with acute myopericarditis and the clinical presentation can mimic acute coronary syndrome. Despite that, acute myopericarditis associated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is usually mild and can be managed conservatively. Incidental findings such as intramyocardial bridging should not exclude the diagnosis of myocarditis and should be carefully evaluated. COVID-19 infection has high mortality and morbidity even in young individuals, and all different COVID-19 vaccines were found effective in the prevention of severe COVID-19 infection and in decreasing COVID-19 mortality.
Myopericarditis has been identified as a potential adverse event of several vaccines in the medical literature. Here we present a case of a 30-year-old male who had myopericarditis a week after receiving the second booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. The patient's clinical course was not severe and had a full recovery after a week of treatment.
PURPOSE: Coagulopathy is common in patients with COVID-19. The ideal approach to anticoagulation remains under debate. There is a significant variability in existing protocols for anticoagulation, and these are mostly based on sporadic reports, small studies, and expert opinion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated the association between anticoagulation dose and inpatient mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) or step-down units (SDUs) of eight Beaumont Healthcare hospitals in Michigan, USA from March 10th to April 15th, 2020. RESULTS: Included were 578 patients with a median age of 64 years; among whom, 57.8% were males. Most patients (n = 447, 77.3%) received high dose and one in four (n = 131, 22.7%) received low dose anticoagulation. Overall mortality rate was 41.9% (n = 242). After adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, race, BMI, ferritin level at hospital admission, intubation, comorbidities, mSOFA, and Padua score), administration of high anticoagulation doses at the time of ICU/SDU admission was associated with decreased inpatient mortality (OR 0.564, 95% CI 0.333-0.953, p = 0.032) compared to low dose. CONCLUSION: Treatment with high dose anticoagulation at the time of ICU/SDU admission was associated with decreased adjusted mortality among critically ill adult patients with COVID-19.
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Adult , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Critical Care , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
