No abstract

Hydroxychloroquine, initially used as an antimalarial, is used as an immunomodulatory and antiinflammatory agent for the management of autoimmune and rheumatic diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus. Lately, there has been interest in its potential efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, with several speculated mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to elaborate on the mechanisms surrounding hydroxychloroquine. The review is an in-depth analysis of the antimalarial, immunomodulatory, and antiviral mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine, with detailed and novel pictorial explanations. The mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine are related to potential cardiotoxic manifestations and demonstrate potential adverse effects when used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Finally, current literature associated with hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 has been analyzed to interrelate the mechanisms, adverse effects, and use of hydroxychloroquine in the current pandemic. Currently, there is insufficient evidence about the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. KEY MESSAGES 1. HCQ, initially an antimalarial agent, is used as an immunomodulatory agent for managing several autoimmune diseases, for which its efficacy is linked to inhibiting lysosomal antigen processing, MHC-II antigen presentation, and TLR functions. 2. HCQ is generally well-tolerated although severe life-threatening adverse effects including cardiomyopathy and conduction defects have been reported. 3. HCQ use in COVID-19 should be discouraged outside clinical trials under strict medical supervision.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to cause worse outcomes in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease, especially in patients with acute cardiac injury, which is determined by elevated levels of high-sensitivity troponin. There is a paucity of data on the impact of congestive heart failure (CHF) on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods We conducted a literature search of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases from 11/1/2019 till 06/07/2020, and identified all relevant studies reporting cardiovascular comorbidities, cardiac biomarkers, disease severity, and survival. Pooled data from the selected studies was used for metanalysis to identify the impact of risk factors and cardiac biomarker elevation on disease severity and/or mortality. Results We collected pooled data on 5,967 COVID-19 patients from 20 individual studies. We found that both non-survivors and those with severe disease had an increased risk of acute cardiac injury and cardiac arrhythmias, our pooled relative risk (RR) was — 8.52 (95% CI 3.63–19.98) (p<0.001); and 3.61 (95% CI 2.03–6.43) (p=0.001), respectively. Mean difference in the levels of Troponin-I, CK-MB, and NT-proBNP was higher in deceased and severely infected patients. The RR of in-hospital mortality was 2.35 (95% CI 1.18–4.70) (p=0.022) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.12–2.05) (p=0.008) among patients who had pre-existing CHF and hypertension, respectively. Conclusion Cardiac involvement in COVID-19 infection appears to significantly adversely impact patient prognosis and survival. Pre-existence of CHF, and high cardiac biomarkers like NT-pro BNP and CK-MB levels in COVID-19 patients correlates with worse outcomes.

Pericardial decompression syndrome (PDS) is an infrequent, life-threatening complication following pericardial drainage for cardiac tamponade physiology. PDS usually develops after initial clinical improvement following pericardiocentesis and is significantly underreported and may be overlooked in the clinical practice. Although the precise mechanisms resulting in PDS are not well understood, this seems to be highly associated with patients who have some underlying ventricular dysfunction. Physicians performing pericardial drainage should be mindful of the risk factors associated with the procedure including the rare potential for the development of PDS.

Background The usefulness of right heart catherization (RHC) has long been debated, and thus, we aimed to study the real‐world impact of the use of RHC in cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results In the Nationwide Readmissions Database using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision ( ICD‐1 0 ), we identified 236 156 patient hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock between 2016 and 2017. We sought to evaluate the impact of RHC during index hospitalization on management strategies, complications, and outcomes as well as on 30‐day readmission rate. A total 25 840 patients (9.6%) received RHC on index admission. The RHC group had significantly more comorbidities compared with the non‐RHC group. During the index admission, the RHC group had lower death (25.8% versus 39.5%, P <0.001) and stroke rates (3.1% versus 3.4%, P <0.001). Thirty‐day readmission rates (18.7% versus 19.7%, P =0.04) and death on readmission (7.9% versus 9.3%, P =0.03) were also lower in the RHC group. After adjustment, RHC was associated with lower index admission mortality (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.66–0.72), lower stroke rate (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72–0.90), lower 30‐day readmission (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78–0.88), and higher left ventricular assist device implantations/orthotopic heart transplants (odds ratio, 6.05; 95% CI, 4.43–8.28) during rehospitalization. Results were not meaningfully different after excluding patients with cardiac arrest. Conclusions RHC use in cardiogenic shock is associated with improved outcomes and increased use of downstream advanced heart failure therapies. Further blinded randomized studies are required to confirm our findings.