[BostonCard]

This study is pretty scary:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacar...le/2768916

100 survivors of COVID-19 serious enough to be hospitalized were contacted after recovery (resolution of respiratory symptoms and negative swab test) and their hearts were examined by MRI.  They found:

CMR revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and time from the original diagnosis. These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

BC

[BostonCard]

This study is pretty scary:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacar...le/2768916

100 survivors of COVID-19 serious enough to be hospitalized were contacted after recovery (resolution of respiratory symptoms and negative swab test) and their hearts were examined by MRI.  They found:

CMR revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and time from the original diagnosis. These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

BC

[dabigv13]

Concerning findings, but hard to really know what to make of them. Lots of the covid survivors have heart inflammation, but the average ejection fraction, the only measure of actual cardiac function they evaluated, in covid survivors was 58%, normals are 60%. Statistically significant but not clinically relevant.

Will be interesting to see what those hearts look like again in a few months and a year.

[dabigv13]

Concerning findings, but hard to really know what to make of them. Lots of the covid survivors have heart inflammation, but the average ejection fraction, the only measure of actual cardiac function they evaluated, in covid survivors was 58%, normals are 60%. Statistically significant but not clinically relevant.

Will be interesting to see what those hearts look like again in a few months and a year.

[BostonCard]

Another paper with more or less the same finding:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1...120.049252

In summary, myocardial injury is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and not
exclusive to those with ACS or PE. In this single-centre, single-timepoint convalescent study,
myocardial injury was associated with cardiac abnormalities detected by CMR where troponin
elevation is unexplained even when cardiac function is normal. The main limitation of this study
is its cross-sectional design which prompts caution regarding causality of myocardial injury and
its relationship to previous COVID-19 infection. Nevertheless, CMR frequently revealed occult
coronary artery disease, high rates of myocarditis-like LGE and sometimes dual pathology. The
lack of edema in these patients suggests the myocarditis-like scar may be permanent. Further
serial study would clarify this and assess the long-term clinical consequences of these findings.

As pointed out, the big question is what is the clinical significance of these MRI findings.

BC

[BostonCard]

Another paper with more or less the same finding:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1...120.049252

In summary, myocardial injury is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and not
exclusive to those with ACS or PE. In this single-centre, single-timepoint convalescent study,
myocardial injury was associated with cardiac abnormalities detected by CMR where troponin
elevation is unexplained even when cardiac function is normal. The main limitation of this study
is its cross-sectional design which prompts caution regarding causality of myocardial injury and
its relationship to previous COVID-19 infection. Nevertheless, CMR frequently revealed occult
coronary artery disease, high rates of myocarditis-like LGE and sometimes dual pathology. The
lack of edema in these patients suggests the myocarditis-like scar may be permanent. Further
serial study would clarify this and assess the long-term clinical consequences of these findings.

As pointed out, the big question is what is the clinical significance of these MRI findings.

BC

[akiddoc]

A bigger question is whether individuals who are not sick enough for hospitalization have similar cardiac findings in any significant numbers, since the vast majority of those infected are not hospitalized.

[akiddoc]

A bigger question is whether individuals who are not sick enough for hospitalization have similar cardiac findings in any significant numbers, since the vast majority of those infected are not hospitalized.