Improvements in early interventions after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), notably, the increased use of timely reperfusion therapy, have increased survival dramatically in recent decades. Despite this, maladaptive ventricular remodelling and subsequent heart failure (HF) following AMI remain a significant clinical challenge, particularly because several pre-clinical strategies to attenuate remodelling have failed to translate into clinical practice. Monocytes and macrophages, pleiotropic cells of the innate immune system, are integral in both the initial inflammatory response to injury and subsequent wound healing in many tissues, including the heart. However, maladaptive immune cell behaviour contributes to ventricular remodelling in mouse models, prompting experimental efforts to modulate the immune response to prevent the development of HF. Seminal work in macrophage biology defined macrophages as monocyte-derived cells that are comprised of two populations, pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages and reparative M2 macrophages, and initial investigations into cardiac macrophage populations following AMI suggested they aligned well to this model. However, more recent data, in the heart and other tissues, demonstrate remarkable heterogeneity and plasticity in macrophage development, phenotype, and function. These recent insights into macrophage biology may explain the failure of non-specific immunosuppressive strategies and offer novel opportunities for therapeutic targeting to prevent HF following AMI. Here, we summarize the traditional monocyte-macrophage paradigm, experimental evidence for the significance of these cells in HF after AMI, and the potential relevance of emerging evidence that refutes canonical models of monocyte and macrophage biology.

Background: Acute myocarditis (AM) is thought to be a rare cardiovascular complication of COVID-19, although minimal data are available beyond case reports. We aim to report the prevalence, baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes for patients with COVID-19–associated AM on the basis of a retrospective cohort from 23 hospitals in the United States and Europe. Methods: A total of 112 patients with suspected AM from 56 963 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were evaluated between February 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization for COVID-19 and a diagnosis of AM on the basis of endomyocardial biopsy or increased troponin level plus typical signs of AM on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We identified 97 patients with possible AM, and among them, 54 patients with definite/probable AM supported by endomyocardial biopsy in 17 (31.5%) patients or magnetic resonance imaging in 50 (92.6%). We analyzed patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes among all COVID-19–associated AM. Results: AM prevalence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was 2.4 per 1000 hospitalizations considering definite/probable and 4.1 per 1000 considering also possible AM. The median age of definite/probable cases was 38 years, and 38.9% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively). Thirty-one cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. Twenty-one (38.9%) had a fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support. The composite of in-hospital mortality or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 20.4%. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%, 15.1% in patients with associated pneumonia versus 0% in patients without pneumonia ( P =0.044). During hospitalization, left ventricular ejection fraction, assessed by echocardiography, improved from a median of 40% on admission to 55% at discharge (n=47; P <0.0001) similarly in patients with or without pneumonia. Corticosteroids were frequently administered (55.5%). Conclusions: AM occurrence is estimated between 2.4 and 4.1 out of 1000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The majority of AM occurs in the absence of pneumonia and is often complicated by hemodynamic instability. AM is a rare complication in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with an outcome that differs on the basis of the presence of concomitant pneumonia.

AimsThe potential of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) to ameliorate myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) remains controversial. We aimed to analyse the pre-clinical evidence base to ascertain the overall effect and variability of RIC in animal in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the impact of different study protocols on the protective utility of RIC in animal models and identify gaps in our understanding of this promising therapeutic strategy.Methods and resultsOur primary outcome measure was the difference in mean infarct size between RIC and control groups in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. A systematic review returned 31 reports, from which we made 22 controlled comparisons of remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPreC) and 21 of remote ischaemic perconditioning and postconditioning (RIPerC/RIPostC) in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis. In total, our analysis includes data from 280 control animals and 373 animals subject to RIC. Overall, RIPreC reduced infarct size as a percentage of area at risk by 22.8% (95% CI 18.8–26.9%), when compared with untreated controls (P < 0.001). Similarly, RIPerC/RIPostC reduced infarct size by 22.2% (95% CI 17.1–25.3%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, we observed significant heterogeneity in effect size (T2 = 92.9% and I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) that could not be explained by any of the experimental variables analysed by meta-regression. However, few reports have systematically characterized RIC protocols, and few of the included in vivo studies satisfactorily met study quality requirements, particularly with respect to blinding and randomization.ConclusionsRIC significantly reduces infarct size in in vivo models of myocardial IRI. Heterogeneity between studies could not be explained by the experimental variables tested, but studies are limited in number and lack consistency in quality and study design. There is therefore a clear need for more well-performed in vivo studies with particular emphasis on detailed characterization of RIC protocols and investigating the potential impact of gender. Finally, more studies investigating the potential benefit of RIC in larger species are required before translation to humans.