Search

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a novel condition temporally associated with SARS-CoV2 infection. Cardiovascular involvement is mainly evident as acute myocardial dysfunction in MIS-C. The aim of this study was to describe the cardiac dysfunction in patients with MIS-C, defining the role of severity in the clinical presentations and outcomes in a single cohort of pediatric patients. Methods: A single-center retrospective study on patients diagnosed with MIS-C, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition, and referred to Vittore Buzzi Children's Hospital in Milan from November 2020 to February 2021. Patients were managed according to a local approved protocol. According to the admission cardiac left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the patients were divided into group A (LVEF < 45%) and group B (LVEF ≥45%). Pre-existing, clinical, and laboratory factors were assessed for evaluating outcomes at discharge. Results: Thirty-two patients were considered. Cardiac manifestations of MIS-C were reported in 26 patients (81%). Group A included 10 patients (9 M/1F, aged 13 years [IQR 5–15]), and group B included 22 patients (15 M/7 M, aged 9 years [IQR 7–13]). Significant differences were noted among clinical presentations (shock, diarrhea, intensive care unit admission), laboratory markers (leucocytes, neutrophils, and protein C-reactive), and cardiac markers (troponin T and N-terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide) between the groups, with higher compromission in Group A. We found electrocardiogram anomalies in 14 patients (44%) and rhythm alterations in 3 patients (9%), without differences between groups. Mitral regurgitation and coronary involvement were more prevalent in group A. Total length of hospital stay and cardiac recovery time were not statistically different between groups. A recovery of cardiac functioning was reached in all patients. Conclusion: Despite significant differences in clinical presentations and need for intensive care, all of the MIS-C patients with significant cardiac involvement in this study completely recovered. This suggests that the heart is an involved organ and did not influence prognosis if properly treated and supported in the acute phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.—: A relevant portion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients develop severe disease with negative outcomes. Several biomarkers have been proposed to predict COVID-19 severity, but no definite interpretative criteria have been established to date for stratifying risk., Objective.—: To evaluate 6 serum biomarkers (C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, albumin, ferritin, and cardiac troponin T) for predicting COVID-19 severity and to define related cutoffs able to aid clinicians in risk stratification of hospitalized patients., Design.—: A retrospective study of 427 COVID-19 patients was performed. Patients were divided into groups based on their clinical outcome: nonsurvivors versus survivors and patients admitted to an intensive care unit versus others. Receiver operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios were employed to define predictive cutoffs for evaluated markers., Results.—: Marker concentrations at peak were significantly different between groups for both selected outcomes. At univariate logistic regression analysis, all parameters were significantly associated with higher odds of death and intensive care. At the multivariate analysis, high concentrations of lactate dehydrogenase and low concentrations of albumin in serum remained significantly associated with higher odds of death, whereas only low lactate dehydrogenase activities remained associated with lower odds of intensive care admission. The best cutoffs for death prediction were greater than 731 U/L for lactate dehydrogenase and 18 g/L or lower for albumin, whereas a lactate dehydrogenase activity lower than 425 U/L was associated with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.10 for intensive treatment., Conclusions.—: Our study identifies which biochemistry tests represent major predictors of COVID-19 severity and defines the best cutoffs for their use., (© 2020 College of American Pathologists.)

Background: The Joint European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology Committee has recently reviewed the criteria to diagnose myocardial infarction, focusing on the central role of biochemical criterium and indicating the cardiac troponins as the reference marker. However, at present, little is known upon how "old" and "new" biochemical markers of myocardial damage are utilized in daily clinical practice., Methods: We performed a survey across the whole set of Italian coronary care units (CCUs) to evaluate the actual behavior of the clinicians in detecting myocardial necrosis with the biomarkers. A simple and brief questionnaire was used to pursue such purpose., Results: The feedback from CCUs was positive in 87.6% (303/346). The creatine kinase-MB is the most frequently used biomarker, however the "mass concentration" method was utilized in a minority of centers (38%). More than 60% of the CCUs are still measuring obsolete biomarkers as lactic dehydrogenase or aspartate transaminase. Cardiac troponins are measured only in 70% of the centers, and almost always in conjunction with the "old" biomarkers. Additionally, 14.5% of the Italian CCUs had written guidelines upon how to use the biomarkers to pose diagnosis of myocardial infarction. Biochemical criteria widely differed from center to center, regardless of the biomarker selected as reference standard., Conclusions: The results of our survey show a high degree of difference in the choice as well as in the application criteria of biochemical markers for diagnosing myocardial infarction among the Italian CCUs. A great deal of confusion has been accumulating over the years among Italian cardiologists, and this situation was antecedent to the recently released revised criteria for detecting myocardial necrosis.

The recent document of the ESC/ACC Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction (MI) has introduced the measurement of cardiac troponin as the biochemical standard for the diagnosis of MI. This change has been mainly driven by the demonstration that any amount of myocardial damage, as detected by cardiac troponins, implies a worse long-term outcome of the patient. The results of several studies consistently show that there is a continuous relationship between the degree of troponin elevation and the patient's prognosis. The new definition has important consequences on the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with acute coronary syndromes; in fact, patients with increased troponins, i.e. patients with MI, necessitate more aggressive treatment than those without troponin elevations, i.e. patients with unstable angina. The application of the new definition is expected to increase the number of cases of MI by about 30% and to decrease mortality. We believe that several aspects of the new definition need to be discussed before the new criteria for MI are used in clinical practice in Italy. The most relevant issues are the following: 1) the definition of troponin elevation should meet the analytical performance of the available assays, the diagnostic cut-off of which is frequently too imprecise. We propose that troponin elevations be defined as values exceeding the concentration corresponding to a total analytical imprecision of 10%. We disclose such a concentration for the currently available assays and suggest its use in clinical practice to mitigate the possibility of false-positive values; 2) the number of samples required for the diagnosis should be sufficient for the assessment of the changes in concentration over time. When only one sample is available, or when the temporal pattern of the changes in marker concentration is not consistent with the time elapsed from the onset of symptoms, we suggest that objective evidence that myocardial ischemia is the likely cause of myocardial damage should be obtained; 3) the diagnosis of MI after a percutaneous coronary intervention represents a unique situation. In contrast with myocardial damage occurring during spontaneous ischemia, available data do not support the concept that any troponin elevation is associated with an adverse prognosis. In the absence of conclusive studies, we suggest that the diagnosis of MI after a percutaneous coronary intervention be based on conventional criteria. Finally, we propose this summary with the aim of overcoming some of the more controversial aspects of the ESC/ACC redefinition of MI: Criteria for acute, evolving or recent MI. Either one of the following criteria satisfies the diagnosis for an acute, evolving or recent MI: 1) elevation of biochemical markers of myocardial necrosis (preferably troponin) with at least one of the following: a) ischemic symptoms; b) development of pathologic Q waves on the ECG; c) ECG changes indicative of ischemia (ST segment elevation or depression); d) coronary artery intervention (e.g., coronary angioplasty). Marker elevations should be accompanied by objective evidence that myocardial ischemia is the likely cause of myocardial damage when: a) only one blood sample is available; b) marker changes over time are not consistent with the onset of symptoms; 2) pathologic findings of an acute MI. Criteria for established MI. Anyone of the following criteria satisfies the diagnosis for established MI: 1) development of new pathologic Q waves on serial ECGs. The patient may or may not remember previous symptoms. Biochemical markers of myocardial necrosis may have normalized, depending on the length of time that has passed since the infarct developed; 2) pathologic findings of a healed or healing MI.