Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes for COVID-19 and Influenza among Cardiac Transplant Recipients in the United States.

COVID-19 infections can lead to worse outcomes in an immunocompromised population with multiple comorbidities, e.g., heart transplant patients. We used the National Inpatient Sample database to compare heart transplant outcomes in patients with COVID-19 vs. influenza. A total of 2460 patients were included in this study: heart transplant with COVID-19 (n = 1155, 47.0%) and heart transplant with influenza (n = 1305, 53.0%) with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality (n = 120) was significantly higher for heart transplant patients infected with COVID-19 compared to those infected with influenza (9.5% vs. 0.8%, adjusted OR: 51.6 [95% CI 4.3-615.9], p = 0.002) along with significantly higher rates of mechanical ventilation, acute heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, and higher mean total hospitalization cost compared to the influenza group. More studies are needed on the role of vaccination and treatment to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

COVID-19 and Heart Failure with Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients in the United States.

Heart failure exacerbations impart significant morbidity and mortality, however, large- scale studies assessing outcomes in the setting of concurrent coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are limited. We utilized National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to compare clinical outcomes in patients admitted with acute congestive heart failure exacerbation (CHF) with and without COVID-19 infection. A total of 2,101,980 patients (Acute CHF without COVID-19 (n = 2,026,765 (96.4%) and acute CHF with COVID-19 (n = 75,215, 3.6%)) were identified. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to compared outcomes and were adjusted for age, sex, race, income level, insurance status, discharge quarter, Elixhauser co-morbidities, hospital location, teaching status and bed size. Patients with acute CHF and COVID-19 had higher in-hospital mortality compared to patients with acute CHF alone (25.78% vs. 5.47%, adjust OR (aOR) 6.3 (95% CI 6.05-6.62, p < 0.001)) and higher rates of vasopressor use (4.87% vs. 2.54%, aOR 2.06 (95% CI 1.86-2.27, p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (31.26% vs. 17.14%, aOR 2.3 (95% CI 2.25-2.44, p < 0.001)), sudden cardiac arrest (5.73% vs. 2.88%, aOR 1.95 (95% CI 1.79-2.12, p < 0.001)), and acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (5.56% vs. 2.94%, aOR 1.92 (95% CI 1.77-2.09, p < 0.001)). Moreover, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (26.87% vs. 24.5%, adjusted OR 1.26 (95% CI 1.16-1.36, p < 0.001)) with increased incidence of vasopressor use, sudden cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock as compared to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Furthermore, elderly patients and patients with African-American and Hispanic descents had higher in-hospital mortality. Acute CHF with COVID-19 is associated with higher in-hospital mortality, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, and end organ dysfunction such as kidney failure and cardiac arrest.

COVID-19 and Acute Ischemic Stroke Mortality and Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients in the United States: Insight from National Inpatient Sample.

Coronavirus-19, primarily a respiratory virus, also affects the nervous system. Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a well-known complication among COVID-19 infections, but large-scale studies evaluating AIS outcomes related to COVID-19 infection remain limited. We used the National Inpatient Sample database to compare acute ischemic stroke patients with and without COVID-19. A total of 329,240 patients were included in the study: acute ischemic stroke with COVID-19 (n = 6665, 2.0%) and acute ischemic stroke without COVID-19 (n = 322,575, 98.0%). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, mechanical thrombectomy, thrombolysis, seizure, acute venous thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, septic shock, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, length of stay, mean total hospitalization charge, and disposition. Acute ischemic stroke patients who were COVID-19-positive had significantly increased in-hospital mortality compared to acute ischemic stroke patients without COVID-19 (16.9% vs. 4.1%, aOR: 2.5 [95% CI 1.7-3.6], p < 0.001). This cohort also had significantly increased mechanical ventilation use, acute venous thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, septic shock, acute kidney injury, length of stay, and mean total hospitalization charge. Further research regarding vaccination and therapies will be vital in reducing worse outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19.

Impact of COVID-19 on Patients Hospitalized with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States during the Early Pandemic: An Analysis of Outcomes, Care Delivery, and Racial Disparities in Mortality.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare delivery to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of our retrospective study was to determine the effect of COVID-19 on inpatient STEMI outcomes and to investigate changes in cardiac care delivery during 2020. We utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to examine inpatient mortality and cardiac procedures among STEMI patients with and without COVID-19. In our study, STEMI patients with COVID-19 had higher inpatient mortality (47.4% vs. 11.2%, aOR: 3.8, 95% CI: 3.2−4.6, p < 0.001), increased length of stay (9.0 days vs. 4.3 days, p < 0.001) and higher cost of hospitalization (USD 172,518 vs. USD 131,841, p = 0.004) when compared to STEMI patients without COVID-19. STEMI patients with COVID-19 also received significantly less invasive cardiac procedures (coronary angiograms: 30.4% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.001; PCI: 32.9% vs. 70.1%, p < 0.001; CABG: 0.9% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001) and were more likely to receive systemic thrombolytic therapy (4.2% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001) when compared to STEMI patients without COVID-19. Our findings are the result of complications of SARS-CoV2 infection as well as alterations in healthcare delivery due to the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and NSTEMI Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients in the United States and Racial Disparities in Mortality: Insight from National Inpatient Sample Database.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare delivery to patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction (NSTEMI). The aim of our retrospective study is to determine the effect of COVID-19 on inpatient NSTEMI outcomes and to investigate whether changes in cardiac care contributed to the observed outcomes. After multivariate adjustment, we found that NSTEMI patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of inpatient mortality (37.3% vs. 7.3%, adjusted odds ratio: 4.96, 95% CI: 4.6−5.4, p < 0.001), increased length of stay (9.9 days vs. 5.4 days, adjusted LOS: 3.6 days longer, p < 0.001), and a higher cost of hospitalization (150,000 USD vs. 110,000 USD, inflation-adjusted cost of hospitalization: 36,000 USD higher, p < 0.001) in comparison to NSTEMI patients without COVID-19, despite a lower burden of pre-existing cardiac comorbidity. NSTEMI patients with COVID-19 also received less invasive cardiac procedures (coronary angiography: 8.7% vs. 50.3%, p < 0.001; PCI: 4.8% vs. 29%, p < 0.001; and CABG: 0.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001). In our study, we observed increased mortality and in-hospital complications to be a combined effect of COVID-19 infection and myocardial inflammation as a result of cytokine storm, prothrombic state, oxygen supply/demand imbalance and alterations in healthcare delivery from January to December 2020.

COVID-19 Associated Myocarditis Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients in the United States: A Propensity Matched Analysis of National Inpatient Sample.

Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), preliminarily a respiratory virus, can affect multiple organs, including the heart. Myocarditis is a well-known complication among COVID-19 infections, with limited large-scale studies evaluating outcomes associated with COVID-19-related Myocarditis. We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to compare COVID-19 patients with and without Myocarditis. A total of 1,659,040 patients were included in the study: COVID-19 with Myocarditis (n = 6,455, 0.4%) and COVID-19 without Myocarditis (n = 1,652,585, 99.6%). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, sudden cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, length of stay, health care utilization costs, and disposition. We conducted a secondary analysis with propensity matching to confirm results obtained by traditional multivariate analysis. COVID-19 patients with Myocarditis had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to COVID-19 patients without Myocarditis (30.5% vs. 13.1%, adjusted OR: 3 [95% CI 2.1-4.2], p < 0.001). This cohort also had significantly increased cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis, sudden cardiac death, required more mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support and higher hospitalization cost. Vaccination and more research for treatment strategies will be critical for reducing worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related Myocarditis.

Migration of a fractured inferior vena cava filter strut to the right ventricle of the heart.

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are increasingly used in patients with recurrent venous thromboembolism in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated or intolerable. Migration of fragments is a known complication of IVC filter use. We present a case of a 32-year-old man, who presented with right-sided chest pain believed to be caused by a migrated IVC fragment to the right ventricle. The filter was removed by an endovascular cook forceps with the assistance of intracardiac echocardiography. This case serves as an addition to the existing reports of successful removal of intracardiac fragments via minimally invasive endovascular approach, amid a larger number of intracardiac fragments that have been removed by an open-heart approach.

Missed opportunity for anticoagulation in a patient with AL cardiac amyloidosis and rapidly progressive heart failure.

A previously healthy 65-year-old woman presented with progressive symptoms of heart failure. Low-voltage ECG and findings on echocardiography were concerning for infiltrative cardiomyopathy. Cardiac MRI showed biventricular late gadolinium enhancement, and endomyocardial biopsy confirmed monoclonal immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis. Bortezomib-based chemotherapy was initiated, but the patient continued to clinically deteriorate. She required hospital readmission after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attributed to progressive conduction disease, and a permanent pacemaker was implanted. Chest CT angiography showed a small subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE), but anticoagulation was withheld as her lower extremity Doppler was negative. One month later, another pulseless electrical arrest occurred, due to massive PE. Thereafter, she had refractory class IV congestive heart failure with severe right ventricular dysfunction, and was deemed unsuitable for stem-cell or heart transplantation. This case highlights the predilection for thromboembolism in AL cardiac amyloidosis.

Safety and Efficacy of Inpatient Initiation of Dofetilide versus Sotalol for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate and compare the safety and efficacy of two commonly used antiarrhythmic drugs, Dofetilide (DF) and Sotalol (SL), during inpatient drug initiation in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We performed a single center retrospective study of consecutive patients, admitted for initiation of either DF or SL, for AF between 2012 and 2015. Rates of successful cardioversion, QT interval prolongation, adverse events and drug discontinuations were calculated and compared. A two-tailed p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 378 patients, 298 (78.8%) received DF and 80 (21.2%) SL, mean age was 64 ± 11 years, 90% were Caucasians and 66% were males. Among the patients who remained in AF upon admission (DF: 215/298 (72%) vs. SL: 48/80 (60%)), no significant differences were noted in pharmacological cardioversion rates (DF: 125/215(58%) vs. SL: 30/48 (62.5%); p = 0.58). Baseline QTc was similar between the groups, with higher dose dependent QTc prolongation with DF (472.25± 31.3 vs. 458± 27.03; p = 0.008). There were no significant differences in the rates of adverse events such as bradycardia (7.4% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.26), Torsades de pointes (1.3% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.00), and drug discontinuation (9.0% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.47) between the two groups.