BACKGROUND: Cardiac injury, as measured by troponin elevation, has been reported among hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and portends a poor prognosis. However, how the dynamics of troponin elevation interplay with inflammation and coagulation biomarkers over time is unknown. We assessed longitudinal follow-up of cardiac injury, inflammation and coagulation markers in relation to disease severity and outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 2068 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between January 29 and April 1, 2020 at Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China. We defined cardiac injury as an increase in high sensitivity cardiac troponin-I (hs-cTnI) above the 99th of the upper reference limit. We explored the dynamics of elevation in hs-cTnI and the relationship with inflammation (interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-2 receptor, tumor necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein) and coagulation (d-dimer, fibrinogen, international normalized ratio) markers in non-critically ill versus critically ill patients longitudinally and further correlated these markers to survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: Median age was 63 years (first to third quartile 51-70 years), 51.4% of whom were women. When compared to non-critically ill patients (N = 1592, 77.0%), critically ill (defined as requiring mechanical ventilation, in shock or multiorgan failure) patients (N = 476, 23.0%), had more frequent cardiac injury on admission (30.3% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001), with increased mortality during hospitalization (38.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Among critically ill patients, non-survivors (N = 183) had a continuous increase in hs-cTnI levels during hospitalization, while survivors (N = 293) showed a decrease in hs-cTnI level between day 4 and 7 after admission. Specifically, cardiac injury is an independent marker of mortality among critically ill patients at admission, day 4-7 and 8-14. Consistent positive correlations between hs-cTnI and interleukin (IL)-6 on admission (r = 0.59), day 4-7 (r = 0.66) and day 8-14 (r = 0.61; all p < 0.001) and d-dimer (at the same timepoints r = 0.54; 0.65; 0.61, all p < 0.001) were observed. A similar behavior was observed between hs-cTnI and most of other biomarkers of inflammation and coagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac injury commonly occurs in critically ill COVID-19 patients, with increased levels of hs-cTnI beyond day 3 since admission portending a poor prognosis. A consistent positive correlation of hs-cTnI with IL-6 and d-dimer at several timepoints along hospitalization could suggest nonspecific cytokine-mediated cardiotoxicity.

Purpose of review

Histologic evidence of myocardial inflammatory infiltrate not secondary to an ischemic injury is required by current diagnostic criteria to reach a definite diagnosis of myocarditis. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is therefore often indicated for the diagnosis of myocarditis, although it may lack sufficient sensitivity considering the limited possibility of myocardial sampling. Improving the diagnostic yield and utility of EMB is of high priority in the fields of heart failure cardiology and myocarditis in particular. The aim of the present review is to highlight indications, strengths, and shortcomings of current EMB techniques, and discuss innovations currently being tested in ongoing clinical studies, especially in the setting of acute myocarditis and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy.

Recent findings

EMB provides unique diagnostic elements and prognostic information which can effectively guide the treatment of myocarditis. Issues affecting the diagnostic performance in the setting of acute myocarditis and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathies will be discussed in this review in the light of recent expert consensus documents on the management of these conditions and on indication to EMB. Recent innovations using electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided EMB and fluoroscopic-guided EMB during temporary mechanical circulatory support have improved the utility of the procedure. EMB remains an important diagnostic test whose results need to be interpreted in the context of (1) clinical pre-test probability, (2) timing of sampling, (3) quality of sampling (4) site of sampling, (5) histologic type of myocarditis, and (6) analytic methods that are applied. Herein we will review these caveats as well as perspectives and innovations related to the use of this diagnostic tool.

Background There has been significant controversy regarding the effects of pre-hospitalization use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors on the prognosis of hypertensive COVID-19 patients. Methods and Results We retrospectively assessed 2,297 hospitalized COVID-19 patients at Tongji Hospital in Wuhan, China, from January 10th to March 30th, 2020; and identified 1,182 patients with known hypertension on pre-hospitalization therapy. We compared the baseline characteristics and in-hospital mortality between hypertensive patients taking RAS inhibitors (N=355) versus non-RAS inhibitors (N=827). Of the 1,182 hypertensive patients (median age 68 years, 49.1% male), 12/355 (3.4%) patients died in the RAS inhibitors group vs. 95/827 (11.5%) patients in the non-RAS inhibitors group (p<0.0001). Adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 0.28 (95% CI 0.15-0.52, p<0.0001) at 45 days in the RAS inhibitors group compared with non-RAS inhibitors group. Similar findings were observed when patients taking angiotensin receptor blockers (N=289) or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (N=66) were separately compared with non-RAS inhibitors group. The RAS inhibitors group compared with non-RAS inhibitors group had lower levels of C-reactive protein (median 13.5 vs. 24.4 pg/mL; p=0.007) and interleukin-6 (median 6.0 vs. 8.5 pg/mL; p=0.026) on admission. The protective effect of RAS inhibitors on mortality was confirmed in a meta-analysis of published data when our data were added to previous studies (odd ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.65, p<0.0001). Conclusions In a large single center retrospective analysis we observed a protective effect of pre-hospitalization use of RAS inhibitors on mortality in hypertensive COVID-19 patients; which might be associated with reduced inflammatory response.

The field of inflammatory disease of the heart or cardio-immunology is rapidly evolving due to the wider use of non-invasive diagnostic tools able to detect and monitor myocardial inflammation. In acute myocarditis, recent data on the use of immunomodulating therapies have been reported both in the setting of systemic autoimmune disorders and in the setting of isolated forms, especially in patients with specific histology (e.g., eosinophilic myocarditis) or with an arrhythmicburden. A role for immunosuppressive therapies has been also shown in severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a condition that can be associated with cardiac injury and acute myocarditis. Furthermore, ongoing clinical trials are assessing the role of high dosage methylprednisolone in the context of acute myocarditis complicated by heart failure or fulminant presentation or the role of anakinra to treat patients with acute myocarditis excluding patients with hemodynamically unstable conditions. In addition, the explosion of immune-mediated therapies in oncology has introduced new pathophysiological entities, such as immune-checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis and new basic research models to understand the interaction between the cardiac and immune systems. Here we provide a broad overview of evolving areas in cardio-immunology. We summarize the use of new imaging tools in combination with endomyocardial biopsy and laboratory parameters such as high sensitivity troponin to monitor the response to immunomodulating therapies based on recent evidence and clinical experience. Concerning pericarditis, the normal composition of pericardial fluid has been recently elucidated, allowing to assess the actual presence of inflammation; indeed, normal pericardial fluid is rich in nucleated cells, protein, albumin, LDH, at levels consistent with inflammatory exudates in other biological fluids. Importantly, recent findings showed how innate immunity plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of recurrent pericarditis with raised C-reactive protein, with inflammasome and IL-1 overproduction as drivers for systemic inflammatory response. In the era of tailored medicine, anti-IL-1 agents such as anakinra and rilonacept have been demonstrated highly effective in patients with recurrent pericarditis associated with an inflammatory phenotype.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the heart that may occur because of infections, immune system activation, or exposure to drugs. The diagnosis of myocarditis has changed due to the introduction of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We present an expert consensus document aimed to summarize the common terminology related to myocarditis meanwhile highlighting some areas of controversies and uncertainties and the unmet clinical needs. In fact, controversies persist regarding mechanisms that determine the transition from the initial trigger to myocardial inflammation and from acute myocardial damage to chronic ventricular dysfunction. It is still uncertain which viruses (besides enteroviruses) cause direct tissue damage, act as triggers for immune-mediated damage, or both. Regarding terminology, myocarditis can be characterized according to etiology, phase, and severity of the disease, predominant symptoms, and pathological findings. Clinically, acute myocarditis (AM) implies a short time elapsed from the onset of symptoms and diagnosis (generally <1 month). In contrast, chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy indicates myocardial inflammation with established dilated cardiomyopathy or hypokinetic nondilated phenotype, which in the advanced stages evolves into fibrosis without detectable inflammation. Suggested diagnostic and treatment recommendations for AM and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy are mainly based on expert opinion given the lack of well-designed contemporary clinical studies in the field. We will provide a shared and practical approach to patient diagnosis and management, underlying differences between the European and US scientific statements on this topic. We explain the role of histology that defines subtypes of myocarditis and its prognostic and therapeutic implications.

While multiple pharmacological drugs have been associated with myocarditis, temporal trends and overall mortality have not been reported. Here we report the spectrum and main features of 5108 reports of drug-induced myocarditis, in a worldwide pharmacovigilance analysis, comprising more than 21 million individual-case-safety reports from 1967 to 2020. Significant association between myocarditis and a suspected drug is assessed using disproportionality analyses, which use Bayesian information component estimates. Overall, we identify 62 drugs associated with myocarditis, 41 of which are categorized into 5 main pharmacological classes: antipsychotics (n = 3108 reports), salicylates (n = 340), antineoplastic-cytotoxics (n = 190), antineoplastic-immunotherapies (n = 538), and vaccines (n = 790). Thirty-eight (61.3%) drugs were not previously reported associated with myocarditis. Antipsychotic was the first (1979) and most reported class (n = 3018). In 2019, the two most reported classes were antipsychotics (54.7%) and immunotherapies (29.5%). Time-to-onset between treatment start and myocarditis is 15 [interquartile range: 10; 23] days. Subsequent mortality is 10.3% and differs between drug classes with immunotherapies the highest, 32.5% and salicylates the lowest, 2.6%. These elements highlight the diversity of presentations of myocarditis depending on drug class, and show the emerging role of antineoplastic drugs in the field of drug-induced myocarditis.