Search

Abstract Background Complete heart block (CHB) as a first presentation of acute viral myocarditis is a rare occurrence associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In such cases, an endomyocardial biopsy is recommended to make a clear histological diagnosis aiding to differentiate from other possible conditions such as sarcoiditic myocarditis, giant cell myocarditis, and eosinophilic myocarditis. Insertion of a permanent pacemaker may be considered on a case-to-case basis. Case presentation A previously healthy 21-year-old female presented to the emergency department after having suffered two episodes of syncope on a background of a few days’ history of myalgias, chills, and rigors. Electrocardiogram showed high-grade Mobitz II block with intermittent periods of CHB. A bedside echocardiogram upon admission demonstrated normal biventricular systolic function. Given the patient’s unstable haemodynamic status and lack of obvious reversible causes for the CHB, a permanent dual-chamber pacemaker was inserted urgently. Initial blood investigations indicated an ongoing inflammatory process highlighting the possibility of myocarditis as a cause of the CHB. Therefore, a troponin level was taken and was noted to be elevated confirming the suspicion of myocarditis. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decreased over the following days to approximately 20%, clinically resulting in pulmonary oedema and acute shortness of breath. The patient required aggressive intravenous diuresis and anti-heart failure medication. An endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) confirmed the diagnosis of lymphocytic myocarditis. The patient’s condition improved secondary to an improvement in LVEF and resolution of the heart block. A cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging performed 6 weeks from admission reported an improved LVEF of 51% with no late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Based on the reassuring CMR findings and the resolution of CHB on follow-up pacemaker checks, it was deemed safe to explant the pacemaker. Conclusions Acute myocarditis may be complicated with high-degree AV block and cardiogenic shock necessitating close observation in a critical care unit. A permanent pacemaker may provide atrio-ventricular synchrony which helps stabilise the patient’s condition and protect from a prolonged period of heart block. Early myocardial fibrosis on EMB and degree of LGE on CMR are indicators of persistent atrioventricular block. Guideline-directed treatment of heart failure is essential.

Abstract Background Cardiac metastases are rare and frequently remain undiagnosed due to the absence of clinical signs in the majority of cases. Malignancies found to most commonly metastasise to the heart include lung carcinoma, breast carcinoma and lymphoma, while urothelial carcinoma is a rare cause of cardiac metastasis. The patient presented with pyrexia, a rare presentation of metastatic cardiac involvement. Single metastatic lesions are mainly reported in the literature, while multiple metastatic deposits such as in this case are less common. Case presentation A 74-year-old gentleman presented with frequent febrile spikes, a month after undergoing a nephroureterectomy for poorly differentiated urothelial carcinoma. No febrile source was identified, and a computed tomography identified two cardiac lesions. A transthoracic echocardiogram could not detect the cardiac lesions; therefore, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was performed. Three spherical intramyocardial masses were noted at the basal septum, LV apex and the anteromedial papillary muscle. The lesions demonstrated signal characteristics suggestive of cardiac metastases (high fluid content, absence of fat, presence of a surrounding rim of increased extravascular space, absence of deformation within the masses) from the previously resected urothelial carcinoma. The patient was palliated, and he shortly succumbed to his condition. Conclusions Urothelial carcinoma is an exceedingly rare cause of cardiac metastasis. CMR is an important imaging modality for localisation and characterisation of suspicious cardiac lesions, aiding in the diagnosis of cardiac metastasis.

Introduction and Aims. The first COVID-19 case in Malta was confirmed on the 7th of March 2020. This study is aimed at investigating a significant difference between the number of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) admissions and their inpatient outcome at Mater Dei Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to the same period in 2019. Furthermore, we aim to determine predictors of mortality in AECOPD inpatients. Method. Data was collected retrospectively from electronic hospital records during the periods 1st March until 10th May in 2019 and 2020. Results. There was a marked decrease in AECOPD admissions in 2020, with a 54.2% drop in admissions (n=119 in 2020 vs. n=259 in 2019). There was no significant difference in patient demographics or medical comorbidities. In 2020, there was a significantly lower number of patients with AECOPD who received nebulised medications during admission (60.4% in 2020 vs. 84.9% in 2019; p≤0.001). There were also significantly lower numbers of AECOPD patients admitted in 2020 who received controlled oxygen via venturi masks (69.0% in 2020 vs. 84.5% in 2019; p=0.006). There was a significant increase in inpatient mortality in 2020 (19.3% [n=23] and 8.4% [n=22] for 2020 and 2019, respectively, p=0.003). Year was found to be the best predictor of mortality outcome (p=0.001). The lack of use of SABA pre-admission treatment (p=0.002), active malignancy (p=0.003), and increased length of hospital stay (p=0.046) were also found to be predictors of mortality for AECOPD patients; however, these parameters were unchanged between 2019 and 2020 and therefore could not account for the increase in mortality. Conclusions. There was a decrease in the number of admissions with AECOPD in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when compared to 2019. The year 2020 proved to be a significant predictor for inpatient mortality, with a significant increase in mortality in 2020. The decrease in nebuliser and controlled oxygen treatment noted in the study period did not prove to be a significant predictor of mortality when corrected for other variables. Therefore, the difference in mortality cannot be explained with certainty in this retrospective cohort study.