ABSTRACT
Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Electrocardiography/methods , Long QT Syndrome/diagnosis , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , Drug Combinations , Electrocardiography/instrumentation , Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Long QT Syndrome/chemically induced , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Point-of-Care Systems , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Ritonavir/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prolongs QTc corrected interval (QTc). The effect and safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in combination with these therapies have seldom been studied. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate changes in QTc in patients receiving double (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin) and triple therapy (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Lopinavir/Ritonavir) to treat COVID-19. Secondary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital all-cause mortality. METHODS: Patients under treatment with double (DT) and triple therapy (TT) for COVID-19 were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Serial in-hospital electrocardiograms were performed to measure QTc at baseline and during therapy. RESULTS: 168 patients (±66.2 years old) were included: 32.1% received DT and 67.9% received TT. The mean baseline QTc was 410.33 ms. Patients under DT and TT prolonged QTc interval respect baseline values (p < 0.001), without significant differences between both therapy groups (p = 0.748). Overall, 33 patients (19.6%) had a peak QTc and/or an increase QTc 60 ms from baseline, with a higher prevalence among those with hypokalemia (p = 0.003). All-cause mortality was similar between both strategy groups (p = 0.093) and high risk QTc prolongation was no related to clinical events in this series. CONCLUSIONS: DT and TT prolong the QTc in patients with COVID-19. Addition of Lopinavir/Ritonavir on top of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin did not increase QTc compared to DT.
Subject(s)
Azithromycin/pharmacology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Electrocardiography/drug effects , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Lopinavir/pharmacology , Ritonavir/pharmacology , Aged , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , HIV Protease Inhibitors/pharmacology , HIV Protease Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
Although older adults are the fastest-growing age group among cardiovascular patients, nonagenarians with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are under-represented in clinical trials. The aims of this study are to analyze the clinical presentation and outcomes of nonagenarian patients presenting with STEMI and to compare in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes between those treated with optimal medical treatment alone and those receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). We included all consecutive nonagenarians presenting with STEMI admitted in 2 academic centers between 2006 and 2018. There were no exclusion criteria. All-cause mortality was assessed in-hospital and at 1-year follow-up. In total, 167 patients (mean age 91.9 ± 0.17 years; 60% females) were included. Emergent catheterization was performed in 60% of our patients, and pPCI was performed in 50% (nâ¯=â¯83). Overall mortality was 22% in-hospital and 41% at 1-year follow-up. The pPCI group had lower mortality than the medical treatment group: 12% versus 32% in-hospital (p <0.01) and 26% versus 45% at 1-year follow-up (p <0.01), respectively. Multivariable analysis identified 4 independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year: mechanical complications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 9.25, p <0.01), Killip class III/IV (adjusted OR 4.22, p <0.01), serum creatinine at admission (mg/dl; adjusted OR 1.8, p <0.01), and pPCI (adjusted OR 0.52; p <0.05). In conclusion, STEMI in nonagenarians is becoming increasingly common. pPCI may be the preferred strategy in this high-risk cohort when a high grade of disability is not present. Hemodynamic compromise, the presence of complications related to myocardial infarction, renal impairment, and early revascularization may be related to prognosis in these patients.