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/μl (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.

Importance: There is a controversy regarding whether or not to continue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To evaluate the association between ACEIs or ARBs use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Data Sources: Systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to May 31, 2020. We also searched the preprint servers medRxiv and SSNR for additional studies. Study Selection: Observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting the effect of ACEIs or ARBs use on clinical outcomes of adult patients with COVID-19. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Risk of bias of observational studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects models and effects expressed as Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with their 95% confidence interval (95%CI). If available, adjusted effects were pooled. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were COVID-19 severity, hospital discharge, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and troponin, creatinine, procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and D-dimer levels. Results: 40 studies (21 cross-sectional, two case-control, and 17 cohorts) involving 50615 patients were included. ACEIs or ARBs use was not associated with all-cause mortality overall (OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.77-1.60, p=0.56), in subgroups by study design and using adjusted effects. ACEI or ARB use was independently associated with lower COVID-19 severity (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.37-0.87, p<0.01). No significant associations were found between ACEIs or ARBs use and hospital discharge, hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and biomarkers. Conclusions and Relevance: ACEIs or ARBs use was not associated with higher all-cause mortality in COVID-19. However, ACEI or ARB use was independently associated with lower COVID-19 severity. Our results support the current international guidelines to continue the use of ACEIs and ARBs in COVID-19 patients with hypertension.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause a wide range of cardiovascular diseases, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and STEMI-mimickers (such as myocarditis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, among others). We performed a systematic review to summarize the clinical features, management, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who had ST-segment elevation. We searched electronic databases from inception to September 30, 2020 for studies that reported clinical data about COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation. Differences between patients with and without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on coronary angiography were evaluated. Forty-two studies (35 case reports and seven case series) involving 161 patients were included. The mean age was 62.7 ± 13.6 years and 75% were men. The most frequent symptom was chest pain (78%). Eighty-three percent of patients had obstructive CAD. Patients with non-obstructive CAD had more diffuse ST-segment elevation (13% versus 1%, p = 0.03) and diffuse left ventricular wall-motion abnormality (23% versus 3%, p = 0.02) compared to obstructive CAD. In patients with previous coronary stent (n = 17), the 76% presented with stent thrombosis. In the majority of cases, the main reperfusion strategy was primary percutaneous coronary intervention instead of fibrinolysis. The in-hospital mortality was 30% without difference between patients with (30%) or without (31%) obstructive CAD. Our data suggest that a relatively high proportion of COVID-19 patients with ST-segment elevation had non-obstructive CAD. The prognosis was poor across groups. However, our findings are based on case reports and case series that should be confirmed in future studies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11239-021-02411-9.

There is limited evidence about the prognostic utility of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 . We assessed the association between RVD and mortality in COVID-19 patients. We searched electronic databases from inception to February 15, 2021. RVD was defined based on the following echocardiographic variables: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), tricuspid S 0 peak systolic velocity, fractional area change (FAC), and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWLS). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Nineteen cohort studies involving 2307 patients were included. The mean age ranged from 59 to 72 years and 65% of patients were male. TAPSE (mean difference [MD], À3.13 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], À4.08-À2.19), tricuspid S 0 peak systolic velocity (MD, À0.88 cm/s; 95% CI, À1.68 to À0.08), FAC (MD, À3.47%; 95% CI, À6.21 to À0.72), and RVFWLS (MD, À5.83%; 95% CI, À7.47-À4.20

No abstract