Search

OBJECTIVES: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), cardiovascular risk factors and myocardial injury relate to increased mortality. We evaluated the extent of cardiac sequelae 6 months after hospital discharge in patients surviving ICU hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: All survivors of Maastricht-ICU were invited for comprehensive cardiovascular evaluation 6 months after discharge from ICU. Cardiac screening included an electrocardiogram, cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and, wherever indicated, cardiac computed tomography or coronary angiogram. RESULTS: Out of 52 survivors, 81% (n = 42) participated to the cardiovascular follow-up [median follow-up of 6 months, interquartile range (IQR) 6.1-6.7]. Eight patients (19%) had newly diagnosed coronary artery disease (CAD), of which two required a percutaneous intervention. Echocardiographic global longitudinal strain (GLS) was abnormal in 24% and CMR-derived GLS was abnormal in 12%, despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction in all. None of the patients showed elevated T1 relaxation times and five patients (14%) had an elevated T2 relaxation time. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) reflecting regional myocardial fibrosis was increased in eight patients (21%), of which three had myocarditis and three had pericarditis. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular follow-up at 6 months after ICU-admission for severe COVID-19 revealed that one out of five invasively mechanically ventilated survivors had CAD, a quarter had subclinical left ventricular dysfunction defined as reduced echocardiographic GLS, and 42% of the patients had CMR abnormalities (reduced LVEF, reduced GLS, LGE presence, and elevated T2). On the basis of these findings, long-term cardiovascular follow-up is strongly recommended in all post-IC COVID-19 patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Register number [NL8613]) https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8613. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/HJH/B899.

Background & Aims: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. Methods: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 μg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. Results: Overall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81–10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89–4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96–5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14–3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06–3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. Conclusions: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes.