Search

Clinical course and outcomes of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination remain variable. We retrospectively collected data on patients > 12 years old from 01/01/2021 to 12/30/2021 who received COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination and were diagnosed with myocarditis within 60 days of vaccination. Myocarditis cases were based on case definitions by authors. We report on 238 patients of whom most were male (n = 208; 87.1%). The mean age was 27.4 ± 16 (range 12-80) years. Females presented at older ages (41.3 ± 21.5 years) than men 25.7 ± 14 years (p = 0.001). In patients > 20 years of age, the mean duration from vaccination to symptoms was 4.8 days ± 5.5 days, but in < 20, it was 3.0 ± 3.3 days (p = 0.04). Myocarditis occurred most commonly after the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (n = 183; 76.45) and after the second dose (n = 182; 80%). Symptoms started 3.95 ± 4.5 days after vaccination. The commonest symptom was chest pain (n = 221; 93%). Patients were treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 105; 58.3%), colchicine (n = 38; 21.1%), or glucocorticoids (n = 23; 12.7%). About 30% of the patients had left ventricular ejection fraction but more than half recovered the on repeat imaging. Abnormal cardiac MRIs were common; 168 patients (96% of 175 patients that had MRI) had late gadolinium enhancement, while 120 patients (68.5%) had myocardial edema. Heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy use was common (n = 27; 15%). Eleven patients had cardiogenic shock; and 4 patients required mechanical circulatory support. Five patients (1.7%) died; of these, 3 patients had endomyocardial biopsy/autopsy-confirmed myocarditis. Most cases of COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis are mild. Females presented at older ages than men and duration from vaccination to symptoms was longer in patients > 20 years. Cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical circulatory support was seen and mortality was low. Future studies are needed to better evaluate risk factors, and long-term outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myocarditis., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Myocardial injury, diagnosed by troponin elevation, is common in COVID-19 patients, but cardiac involvement with clinical manifestations occurs less frequently. We analyzed the literature on COVID-19 (2020) and systematically reviewed the cases where individual patient data were presented. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for "COVID," "COVID-19," and "coronavirus" in combination with "myocarditis," "heart failure," "takotsubo," "cardiomyopathy," and "cardiogenic shock." We identified 90 cases of COVID-19 with myocardial involvement, mean age 52.9 ± 18.3 years, 54.5% males. Of them, 55 survived (61.1%), 20 died (22.2%), and in 15 (16.7%) the outcome was unknown at the time of publication. Among patients with known outcome, mortality was 26%. The nadir LVEF was 31.7 ± 13.1% and recovered to 50.1 ± 16.0%. Pericardial effusion was a common finding, reported in 21 (23.3%) of patients, including moderate size effusion in 8.9% and large in 7.8%. The effusion caused tamponade in 11 (12.2%) of patients. Out of 83 patients who experienced a decrease in LVEF, 30 could be classified as takotsubo syndrome. The takotsubo patients were older than those with myocarditis, and with relatively high proportion of males. About one third of the cases was complicated by cardiogenic shock. Myocardial involvement in COVID-19 patients most often presents as a new, rapid decrease in LVEF, although normal LVEF or takotsubo-like wall motion pattern does not rule out myocarditis. Moderate and large pericardial effusion is common, and cardiac tamponade occurs in 12.2% of patients. Cardiogenic shock develops in one third of the patients. Mortality appears to be high at 26%., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

We describe a unique case of fulminant myocarditis in a patient with presumed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Patient had initial infection 4 months backand had COVID-19 antibody at the time of presentation. Endomyocardial biopsy showed lymphocytic myocarditis, that is usually seen in viral myocarditis. The molecular diagnostic testing of the endomyocardial biopsy for cardiotropic viruses was positive for Parvovirus and negative for SARS-CoV-2. Authors highly suspect co-infection of SARS-CoV-2 and Parvovirus, that possibly triggered the immune cascade resulting in fulminant myocarditis. Patient was hemodynamically unstable with ventricular tachycardia and was supported on VA ECMO and Impella CP. There was impressive recovery of left ventricular function within 48 h, leading to decannulation of VA ECMO in 72 h. This unique case was written by the survivor herself.

Lupus myocarditis is a serious, potentially deadly disease. When it presents as an acute or fulminant myocarditis in a patient without an established diagnosis of lupus, lupus as an etiology of the condition is not commonly suspected. Meanwhile, it has a distinct treatment which may be lifesaving. Review of the literature can shed more light as current management is mostly based on clinical experience and case reports rather than randomized control trials. In this review we are discussing this diagnostic entity, focusing on cardiogenic shock as a manifestation of lupus myocarditis, and discussing management including aggressive immunosuppression, mechanical circulatory support, and cardiac transplantation.

The cardiac effects of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) include myocarditis, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, pericardial effusion, and cardioembolic events in the general population. The effects of SARS-CoV-2 in heart transplant patients are unclear. We describe a case of myocarditis in the transplanted heart that responded to methylprednisolone., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The utility of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) in the management of myocarditis in the era of advanced cardiac imaging has been challenged., Methods and Results: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database (years 1998-2013) was queried to identify hospitalization records with a primary diagnosis of myocarditis, and underwent EMB procedure. We identified 22,299 hospitalization records with a diagnosis of myocarditis during the study period. Of those, 798 (3.6%) underwent EMB procedures. There was an average decrease in the incidence of EMB for myocarditis by 0.15% (P < .01) over the study period. Younger patients, women, and those with chronic kidney disease were more likely to undergo EMB. On multivariate analysis, patients with myocarditis who underwent EMB had higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.74) and longer median hospital stay (9 days vs 3 days; P < .001). EMB was associated with a higher incidence of cardiac tamponade (odds ratio [OR] 5.21, 95% CI 2.76-9.82), cardiogenic shock (OR 4.66, 95% CI 3.75-5.78), need for intra-aortic balloon pump (OR 3.52, 95% CI 2.49-4.97), and need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.78-6.53)., Conclusions: The use of EMB in hospitalizations with myocarditis has decreased over time. The use of EMB was associated with a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Whether these findings represent a causative association from the procedure or a consequence of more severe disease in this group could not be confirmed in this study., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We are reporting a case, which may represent a new entity within the diagnosis of acute myocarditis. The patient was admitted with new onset atrioventricular block, very high troponin I, peaking at 266ng/mL, and normal left ventricular function. We also used a novel computer tomography technique with delayed enhancement to diagnose myocarditis, as the patient with a permanent pacemaker could not have magnetic resonance imaging.

Background: Myocarditis, diagnosed by symptoms and troponin elevation, has been well-described with COVID-19 infection, as well as shortly after COVID-19 vaccination. The literature has characterized the outcomes of myocarditis following COVID-19 infection and vaccination, but clinicopathologic, hemodynamic, and pathologic features following fulminant myocarditis have not been well-characterized. We aimed to compare clinical and pathological features of fulminant myocarditis requiring hemodynamic support with vasopressors/inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), in these two conditions. Methods: We analyzed the literature on fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock associated with COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination and systematically reviewed all cases and case series where individual patient data were presented. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for "COVID", "COVID-19", and "coronavirus" in combination with "vaccine", "fulminant myocarditis", "acute heart failure", and "cardiogenic shock". The Student's t-test was used for continuous variables and the χ2 statistic was used for categorical variables. For non-normal data distributions, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used for statistical comparisons. Results: We identified 73 cases and 27 cases of fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection (COVID-19 FM) and COVID-19 vaccination (COVID-19 vaccine FM), respectively. Fever, shortness of breath, and chest pain were common presentations, but shortness of breath and pulmonary infiltrates were more often present in COVID-19 FM. Tachycardia, hypotension, leukocytosis, and lactic acidosis were seen in both cohorts, but patients with COVID-19 FM were more tachycardic and hypotensive. Histologically, lymphocytic myocarditis dominated both subsets, with some cases of eosinophilic myocarditis in both cohorts. Cellular necrosis was seen in 44.0% and 47.8% of COVID-19 FM and COVID-19 vaccine FM, respectively. Vasopressors and inotropes were used in 69.9% of COVID-19 FM and in 63.0% of the COVID-19 vaccine FM. Cardiac arrest was observed more in COVID-19 FM (p = 0.008). Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for cardiogenic shock was also used more commonly in the COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis group (p = 0.0293). Reported mortality was similar (27.7%) and 27.8%, respectively) but was likely worse for COVID-19 FM as the outcome was still unknown in 11% of cases. Conclusions: In the first series to retrospectively assess fulminant myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection versus COVID-19 vaccination, we found that both conditions had a similarly high mortality rate, while COVID-19 FM had a more malignant course with more symptoms on presentation, more profound hemodynamic decompensation (higher heart rate, lower blood pressure), more cardiac arrests, and higher temporary MCS requirements including VA-ECMO. In terms of pathology, there was no difference in most biopsies/autopsies that demonstrated lymphocytic infiltrates and some eosinophilic or mixed infiltrates. There was no predominance of young males in COVID-19 vaccine FM cases, with male patients representing only 40.9% of the cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]