tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
. 2021 Apr 28.
doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001202. Online ahead of print.
Pericarditis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review
Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jose Saucedo-Chinchay, Massimo Imazio
Affiliations
Abstract
Aims: We performed a systematic review to summarize the clinical features, diagnostic methods, treatment, and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with pericarditis.
Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to 17 December 2020. Studies that reported clinical data on patients with COVID-19 and pericarditis were included. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical and continuous variables [mean ? standard deviation or median (interquartile range)]. As an exploratory analysis, differences between patients with acute pericarditis and myopericarditis were compared.
Results: A total of 33 studies (32 case reports and 1 case series) involving 34 patients were included. The mean age was 51.6 ? 19.5 years and 62% of patients were men. Sixty-two percentage of patients were diagnosed with myopericarditis. The most frequent electrocardiographic pattern (56%) was diffuse ST-elevation and PR depression. Pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade were reported in 76 and 35% of cases, respectively. The median values of C-reactive protein [77 mg/dl (12-177)] and white blood cells [12 335 cells/?l (5625-16 500)] were above the normal range. Thirty-eight percent and 53% of patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and colchicine, respectively. These drugs were more frequently used in patients with acute pericarditis compared with myopericarditis. The in-hospital mortality was 6% without a significant difference between both groups.
Conclusion: Our review shows that COVID-19 patients with pericarditis had similar clinical features to other viral cardiotropic infections. However, NSAIDs and colchicine were used in half or less of the cases. Overall, the short-term prognosis was good across groups.
. 2021 Apr 28.
doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001202. Online ahead of print.
Pericarditis in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review
Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jose Saucedo-Chinchay, Massimo Imazio
Affiliations
- PMID: 33927144
- DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001202
Abstract
Aims: We performed a systematic review to summarize the clinical features, diagnostic methods, treatment, and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with pericarditis.
Methods: We searched electronic databases from inception to 17 December 2020. Studies that reported clinical data on patients with COVID-19 and pericarditis were included. Descriptive statistics were used for categorical and continuous variables [mean ? standard deviation or median (interquartile range)]. As an exploratory analysis, differences between patients with acute pericarditis and myopericarditis were compared.
Results: A total of 33 studies (32 case reports and 1 case series) involving 34 patients were included. The mean age was 51.6 ? 19.5 years and 62% of patients were men. Sixty-two percentage of patients were diagnosed with myopericarditis. The most frequent electrocardiographic pattern (56%) was diffuse ST-elevation and PR depression. Pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade were reported in 76 and 35% of cases, respectively. The median values of C-reactive protein [77 mg/dl (12-177)] and white blood cells [12 335 cells/?l (5625-16 500)] were above the normal range. Thirty-eight percent and 53% of patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and colchicine, respectively. These drugs were more frequently used in patients with acute pericarditis compared with myopericarditis. The in-hospital mortality was 6% without a significant difference between both groups.
Conclusion: Our review shows that COVID-19 patients with pericarditis had similar clinical features to other viral cardiotropic infections. However, NSAIDs and colchicine were used in half or less of the cases. Overall, the short-term prognosis was good across groups.