RESUMEN
Background: Case series have reported persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms, often termed long-COVID or post-COVID syndrome, in more than half of patients recovering from Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). Recently, alterations in microvascular perfusion have been proposed as a possible pathomechanism in long-COVID syndrome. We examined whether microvascular perfusion, measured by quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), is impaired in patients with persistent cardiac symptoms post-COVID-19. Methods: Our population consisted of 33 patients post-COVID-19 examined in Berlin and London, 11 (33%) of which complained of persistent chest pain and 13 (39%) of dyspnea. The scan protocol included standard cardiac imaging and dual-sequence quantitative stress perfusion. Standard parameters were compared to 17 healthy controls from our institution. Quantitative perfusion was compared to published values of healthy controls. Results: The stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) was significantly lower [31.8 ± 5.1 vs. 37.8 ± 6.0 (µl/g/beat), P < 0.001] and the T2 relaxation time was significantly higher (46.2 ± 3.6 vs. 42.7 ± 2.8 ms, P = 0.002) post-COVID-19 compared to healthy controls. Stress MBF and T1 and T2 relaxation times were not correlated to the COVID-19 severity (Spearman r = -0.302, -0.070, and -0.297, respectively) or the presence of symptoms. The stress MBF showed a U-shaped relation to time from PCR to CMR, no correlation to T1 relaxation time, and a negative correlation to T2 relaxation time (Pearson r = -0.446, P = 0.029). Conclusion: While we found a significantly reduced microvascular perfusion post-COVID-19 compared to healthy controls, this reduction was not related to symptoms or COVID-19 severity.
RESUMEN
Cardiac involvement has been described in varying proportions of patients recovered from COVID-19 and proposed as a potential cause of prolonged symptoms, often described as post-COVID or long COVID syndrome. Recently, cardiac complications have been reported from COVID-19 vaccines as well. We aimed to compare CMR-findings in patients with clinical cardiac symptoms after COVID-19 and after vaccination. From May 2020 to May 2021, we included 104 patients with suspected cardiac involvement after COVID-19 who received a clinically indicated cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examination at a high-volume center. The mean time from first positive PCR to CMR was 112 ± 76 days. During their COVID-19 disease, 21% of patients required hospitalization, 17% supplemental oxygen and 7% mechanical ventilation. In 34 (32.7%) of patients, CMR provided a clinically relevant diagnosis: Isolated pericarditis in 10 (9.6%), %), acute myocarditis (both LLC) in 7 (6.7%), possible myocarditis (one LLC) in 5 (4.8%), ischemia in 4 (3.8%), recent infarction in 2 (1.9%), old infarction in 4 (3.8%), dilated cardiomyopathy in 3 (2.9%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 2 (1.9%), aortic stenosis, pleural tumor and mitral valve prolapse each in 1 (1.0%). Between May 2021 and August 2021, we examined an additional 27 patients with suspected cardiac disease after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, CMR provided at least one diagnosis in 22 (81.5%): Isolated pericarditis in 4 (14.8%), acute myocarditis in 9 (33.3%), possible myocarditis (acute or subsided) in 6 (22.2%), ischemia in 3 (37.5% out of 8 patients with stress test), isolated pericardial effusion (> 10 mm) and non-compaction-cardiomyopathy each in 1 (3.7%). The number of myocarditis diagnoses after COVID-19 was highly dependent on the stringency of the myocarditis criteria applied. When including only cases of matching edema and LGE and excluding findings in the right ventricular insertion site, the number of cases dropped from 7 to 2 while the number of cases after COVID-19 vaccination remained unchanged at 9. While myocarditis is an overall rare side effect after COVID-19 vaccination, it is currently the leading cause of myocarditis in our institution due to the large number of vaccinations applied over the last months. Contrary to myocarditis after vaccination, LGE and edema in myocarditis after COVID-19 often did not match or were confined to the RV-insertion site. Whether these cases truly represent myocarditis or a different pathological entity is to be determined in further studies.
