Search

Myocarditis and pericarditis have been proposed to account for a proportion of cardiac injury during SARS-CoV-2 infection. The impact of COVID-19 the pandemic on the incidence of this acute inflammatory cardiac disease was not systematically evaluated.To examine the incidence and prevalence of inflammatory heart disorders prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.We compared the incidence and prevalence of acute inflammatory heart diseases (myocarditis, pericarditis) in the provinces of Pisa, Lucca and Livorno in two time intervals: prior to (PRECOVID, from 1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID, from 1 June 2020 to May 2021).Overall 259 cases of inflammatory heart disease (myocarditis and/or pericarditis) occurred in the areas of interest. The annual incidence was of 11.3 cases per 100 000 inhabitants. Particularly, 138 cases occurred in the pre-COVID, and 121 in the COVID period. The annual incidence of inflammatory heart disease was not significantly different (12.1/100 000 in PRECOVID vs 10.3/100 000 in COVID, P = 0.22). The annual incidence of myocarditis was significantly higher in PRECOVID than in COVID, respectively 8.1/100 000/year vs. 5.9/100 000/year (P = 0.047) consisting of a net reduction of 27% of cases. Particularly the incidence of myocarditis was significantly lower in COVID than in PRECOVID in the class of age 18-24thyears. Despite this, myocarditis of the COVID period had more wall motion abnormalities and greater LGE extent. The annual incidence of pericarditis was, instead, not significantly different (4.03/100 000 vs, 4.47/100 000, P = 0.61).Despite a possible etiologic role of SARS-CoV-2 and an expectable increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis, data of this preliminary study, with a geographically limited sample size, suggest a decrease in acute myocarditis and a stable incidence of pericarditis and of myopericarditis/perimyocarditis.

Background MessengerRNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination has been associated with a higher-than-expected occurrence of acute myocarditis. Scarce information is available on mid-term prognosis and changes in cardiac function, volumes, and tissue characterization on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods Retrospective, multicenter study including patients with a definite diagnosis of acute myocarditis within 30 days from mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, with a confirmed myocarditis diagnosis based on endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) or autopsy or by the coexistence of positive biomarkers (troponin >99th upper reference limit or elevated creatine kinase myocardial band [CK-MB]) and cardiac MRI findings consistent with AM according to the 2018 updated Lake Louise Criteria. Results 77 patients (median age 25 years [IQR 20-35], 15% female) were included and followed-up for 147 days [IQR 74-215]. Follow-up CMR was available in n=49 patients and showed no changes in biventricular ejection fraction (EF) as compared to CMR at diagnosis (left ventricular EF: 59%[55-65]vs. 60%[57-64], p=0.507, right ventricular EF: 56%[52-62]vs. 57%[52-61], p=0.563, respectively). Late gadolinium enhancement was present in all patients at diagnosis and persisted in only n=39 (79.6%) at follow-up (p=0.001), generally sparing the anterior wall and the septum. N=10 (20.4%) had a persistent edema based on T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequences, with predominant involvement of inferior or inferior-lateral walls. The proportion of patients with increased T1 and T2 mapping signals significantly decreased at follow-up (n=13 (68%) vs. n=4 (13%),p No differences in morpho-functional CMR parameters based on the type of vaccine administered were found (BNT162b2 Pfizer/BioNTech®, n=36, 73.5%, m-RNA-1273 Moderna®, n=13, 26.5%). Among patients with available follow-up (N=75, 97.4%), no major adverse cardiovascular events nor myocarditis recurrence or death were reported. Conclusions At mid-term follow-up, patients who experienced an acute myocarditis after a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine had preserved biventricular EF. The rate and localization of residual scar or edema on CMR is in line with classic viral myocarditis with a good prognosis. This new piece of information should further reassure patients who experience acute myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Background High thromboembolic risk associated with rheumatic mitral stenosis has been well established, especially in concomitant atrial fibrillation; however, the presence of left atrium ball thrombus is an uncommon finding. Case Summary A 75-year-old woman with a history of mild rheumatic mitral stenosis was admitted to Emergency Department with cardiogenic shock and high ventricular rate atrial fibrillation. Emergency electrical cardioversion was performed—before trans-oesophageal echocardiography (TOE)—due to haemodynamic deterioration which restored sinus rhythm. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) revealed severe reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF: 15%), severe rheumatic mitral stenosis and a large, perfectly rounded mass, situated at the ostium of left upper pulmonary vein. Due to the persistence of haemodynamic instability and acute pulmonary oedema the patient was intubated and mechanically ventilated and treated with intravenous administration of inotropes and high doses of diuretics. During the stay in Intensive Care Unit, a TOE confirmed a spherical and double-walled mass suggesting a working diagnosis of left atrial ball thrombus (LABT). The case was discussed in Heart Team and considering the poor haemodynamic status in the contest of refractory cardiogenic shock with evidence of multi-organ failure, emergency surgical thrombectomy and mitral valve replacement was deemed prohibitive. Patient developed cardiac arrest and emergency TTE showed left atrial mass engaged into the mitral valve totally obstructing the left ventricle inflow tract. The autopsy and histologic examination confirmed the thrombotic nature of the mass. Discussion A free-floating ball thrombus in the left atrium is an unusual occurrence in rheumatic mitral stenosis and it may cause fatal systemic embolization or acute left ventricular inflow obstruction, resulting in syncope, pulmonary congestion, and sudden cardiac death. When possible, emergency surgical thrombectomy and mitral valve replacement can be life-saving.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) on the occurrence of new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in treated hypertensive patients. We studied 2135 sequential treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years. During the follow‐up (mean 9.7 years, range 0.4–20 years), 116 events (new‐onset AF) occurred. In univariate analysis, clinic, daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP were all significantly associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.22 (1.11–1.35), 1.36 (1.21–1.53), 1.42 (1.29–1.57), and 1.42 (1.26–1.60), respectively. After adjustment for various covariates in multivariate analysis, clinic systolic BP was no longer associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, whereas daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP remained significantly associated with outcome, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.09 (0.97–1.23), 1.23 (1.10–1.39), 1.16 (1.03–1.31), and 1.22 (1.06–1.40), respectively. Daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP are superior to clinic systolic BP in predicting new‐onset AF in treated hypertensive patients. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether a better control of ambulatory BP might be helpful in reducing the occurrence of new‐onset AF.

The authors assessed the prognostic value of daytime and nighttime blood pressure (BP) in adult (≤65 years) or old (> 65 years) women or men with treated hypertension. Cardiovascular outcomes were evaluated in 2264 patients. During the follow-up (mean 10 years), 523 cardiovascular events occurred. After adjustment for covariates, both daytime and nighttime systolic BP were always associated with outcomes, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval per 10 mm Hg increment) 1.22 (1.04-1.43) and 1.20 (1.04-1.37), respectively, in adult women, 1.30 (1.18-1.43) and 1.21 (1.10-1.33), respectively, in adult men, 1.21 (1.10-1.33) and 1.18 (1.07-1.31), respectively, in old women, and 1.16 (1.01-1.33) and 1.28 (1.14-1.44), respectively, in old men. When daytime and nighttime systolic BP were further and mutually adjusted, daytime and nighttime BP had comparable prognostic value in adult and old women, daytime BP remained associated with outcomes in adult men (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.74 per 10 mm Hg increment), and nighttime BP remained associated with outcomes in old men (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.64 per 10 mm Hg increment). Daytime and nighttime systolic BP have similar prognostic impact in adult and old women with treated hypertension, whereas daytime BP is a stronger predictor of risk in adult men and nighttime BP is a stronger predictor of risk in old men.

Background Anticoagulation is the mainstay of prevention of arterial thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, but it could be effective also in secondary prevention of patients who are in sinus rhythm. Purpose We performed this meta-analysis to determine relative efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) as compared with antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with prevalent cerebro-cardiovascular disease without atrial fibrillation. Methods Our systematic review of the literature published through January 31st, 2019 sought all phase III randomized controlled trials which compare OAC with APT in patients with sinus rhythm and report at least one of the following outcomes: ischemic stroke, death, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding, assessed at the longest available follow-up. We used random-effects models to estimate summary relative risk reduction (RRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results We identified a total of 9 randomized controlled trials including a total of 34,912 patients (ASA, n=17,726; adjusted-dose warfarin, n=4,460; rivaroxaban, n=12726), with a mean follow-up of 2.2 years. When compared with antiplatelet therapy, OAC was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke (RRR 38%, 95% CI: 1; 47; P=0.04; I2=72%) and myocardial infarction (RRR 13%, 95% CI: 0,23; P=0.05, I2=0%), but increased risk of major bleeding (RRR −52%, 95% CI: −129; −1; P=0.04; I2=76%). Compared to antiplatelet treatment, OAC did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause death (RRR 1%, 95% CI: −9; 10; P=0.86; I2=12%). Conclusions In sinus rhythm patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, OAC reduces risk of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction, but significantly increases risk of major bleeding. The choice of antithrombotic treatment does not appear to influence all-cause mortality.