Four guidelines on cardiovascular complications and cardiovascular disease, prognosis and treatment in COVID-19

Cardiolog

Impact of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

Background Hospitalised COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular risk factors appear to be at risk of poor outcome. It is unknown if these patients should be considered a vulnerable group in healthcare delivery and healthcare recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to answer the following question: In which hospitalised patients with proven COVID-19 and with underlying CVD and cardiovascular risk factors should doctors be alert to a poor outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality and intensive care unit admission. Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant search terms until 9 June 2020. After systematic analysis, 8 studies were included. Results Based on the literature search, there was insufficient evidence that CVD and cardiovascular risk factors are significant predictors of mortality and poor outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Due to differences in methodology, the level of evidence of all studies was graded 'very low' according to the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. It is expected that in the near future, two multinational and multicentre European registries (CAPACITY-COVID and LEOSS) will offer more insight into outcome in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion This literature review demonstrated there was insufficient evidence to identify CVD and cardiovascular risk factors as important predictors of poor outcome in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. However, patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors remain vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As such, governmental and public health COVID-19 recommendations for vulnerable groups apply to these patients.Cardiolog

Effect of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients

Background In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke, has been reported. It is unknown whether anticoagulation can prevent these complications and improve outcome. Methods A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of (prophylactic and therapeutic dose) anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications and clinical outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 17 July 2020. After systematic analysis, eight studies were included. Analysis was stratified for the start of anticoagulation before or during hospital admission. Results There was insufficient evidence that therapeutic anticoagulation could improve the outcome in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. None of the studies demonstrated improved mortality, except for one very small Italian study. Furthermore, none of the studies showed a positive effect of anticoagulation on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy, except for two studies demonstrating an association between anticoagulation and a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'low' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. Conclusion Analysis of the literature showed that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of anticoagulation on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question.Cardiolog

How often and to what extent do admitted COVID-19 patients have signs of cardiac injury?

Background COVID-19 can cause myocardial injury in a significant proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and seems to be associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this review was to study how often and to what extent COVID-19 causes myocardial injury and whether this is an important contributor to outcome with implications for management. Methods A literature search was performed in Medline and Embase. Myocardial injury was defined as elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels with at least one value > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit. The primary outcome measure was mortality, whereas secondary outcome measures were intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. Results Four studies and one review were included. The presence of myocardial injury varied between 9.6 and 46.3%. Myocardial injury was associated with a higher mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 5.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.48-8.80) and more ICU admissions (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.07-6.89). The results regarding length of hospital stay were inconclusive. Conclusion Patients with myocardial injury might be classified as high-risk patients, with probably a higher mortality rate and a larger need for ICU admission. cTn levels can be used in risk stratification models and can indicate which patients potentially benefit from early medication administration. We recommend measuring cTn levels in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital or who deteriorate during admission.Cardiolog

Excess length of stay and economic consequences of adverse events in Dutch hospital patients

Background To investigate the average and extrapolated excess length of stay and direct costs of adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs in Dutch hospitals, and to evaluate patient characteristics associated with excess length of stay and costs. Methods Data of a large retrospective patient record review study on AEs was used. A stratified sample of 20 Dutch hospitals was included. Excess length of stay and costs attributable to AEs and preventable AEs were calculated and extrapolated to a national estimate. The association between patient characteristics and excess length of stay (and costs thereof) attributable to AEs and preventable AEs was investigated through multilevel linear regression analyses. Results A total of 2975 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 325 experienced one or more AEs. Hospital patients experiencing an AE stayed 5.11 (95 % CI 3.91–6.30) more days in hospital and cost €2600 (95 % CI €1968–€3232) more compared to those without an AE. There was no significant difference in days and costs between preventable and non-preventable AEs. Extrapolated to a national level, AEs cost more than €300 million, which was 1.3 % of the national hospital care budget. Patients with hospital-acquired infections had a statistically significant longer length of stay compared to the reference group (patients with AEs on the cardiovascular system). Conclusions This study showed that AEs lead to substantial excess length of stay and increased costs. Special attention should be paid to patients with AEs due to an hospital-acquired infection. (aut. ref.

Postoperative pain assessment in hospitalised patients: National survey and secondary data analysis

BACKGROUND: Measuring pain is important for the adequate pain management of postoperative patients. The actual compliance with pain assessment in postoperative patients after implementation of a national safety program is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine the compliance with pain assessment in postoperative patients after implementation of a national safety program, according to the national quality indicators for pain assessment in postoperative patients. Furthermore, organisational factors associated with this compliance were determined. STUDY DESIGN: In this study, two data sources were used: 1) data from an evaluation study of the Dutch Hospital Patient Safety Program; and 2) data from a questionnaire survey. METHODS: The compliance with two different pain process indicators was determined: 1) 3 pain measurements a day, all three full days after surgery; and 2) >/=1 pain measurement a day, all three full days after surgery. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between organisational factors in hospitals and compliance with pain process indicators. RESULTS: Data of 3895 patient records from 16 hospitals was included in this study. In 12% of the postoperative patients, pain was measured 3 times a day, all three full days after surgery. In 53% of the postoperative patients, pain was measured >/=1 time a day, all three full days after surgery. Compliance was highest in general hospitals compared to tertiary teaching and academic hospitals, and was statistically significantly higher at the surgery and surgical oncology department compared to the other departments. CONCLUSIONS: Low compliance was shown with pain assessment in postoperative patients, according to the process indicator pain after surgery in Dutch hospitals. This suggests that the implementation of measuring pain in hospitals is still insufficient

The effects of ACE2 expression mediating pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 patients

Background: There has been debate on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme‑2 (ACE2) expression mediating pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 infected patients. Although it has been suggested that these drugs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 infection, experimental data suggest these agents may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II-mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation and fibrosis. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of medications that influence ACE2 expression (ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and thiazolidinediones) on the outcomes of COVID-19? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 24 June 2020. After systematic analysis, nine studies were included. Results: The results were described for two different groups, an overall group in which all users were compared with non-users and a group in which only hypertensive patients were included. Within each group a distinction was made between results for ACEI/ARB use, ACEI use, ARB use, NSAID use and thiazolidinedione use. None of the studies demonstrated increased mortality in the two groups. Furthermore, none of the studies showed an effect on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from ‘moderate’ to ‘very low’, according to the GRADE methodology. Conclusion: Analysis of the literature demonstrated that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of ACE2 expression mediating pharmacotherapy on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question

Impact of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors in hospitalised COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular risk factors appear to be at risk of poor outcome. It is unknown if these patients should be considered a vulnerable group in healthcare delivery and healthcare recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the following question: In which hospitalised patients with proven COVID-19 and with underlying CVD and cardiovascular risk factors should doctors be alert to a poor outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality and intensive care unit admission. Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant search terms until 9 June 2020. After systematic analysis, 8 studies were included. RESULTS: Based on the literature search, there was insufficient evidence that CVD and cardiovascular risk factors are significant predictors of mortality and poor outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Due to differences in methodology, the level of evidence of all studies was graded 'very low' according to the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. It is expected that in the near future, two multinational and multicentre European registries (CAPACITY-COVID and LEOSS) will offer more insight into outcome in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This literature review demonstrated there was insufficient evidence to identify CVD and cardiovascular risk factors as important predictors of poor outcome in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. However, patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors remain vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As such, governmental and public health COVID-19 recommendations for vulnerable groups apply to these patients