Over the last one-year COVID 19 has affected millions of people around the world. Though initially it was thought to be an infection of respiratory system, but it involves any organ of the body. Its morbidity and mortality are more when it involves patients with preexisting cardiovascular diseases and also when it causes a cardiovascular complication. COVID 19 can produce a number of cardiovascular complications including myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, arrhythmia, thromboembolism etc. Following recovery from COVID 19 infection evaluation, follow up and management of these cardiovascular conditions, which may be sometimes in subclinical form, is essential. Though there is lack of adequate studies or guidelines, we tried to discuss the different aspects of Post- COVID cardiovascular care depending on the existing evidence and previous guidelines. Cardiovasc. j. 2021; 13(2): 189-199

Background: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is an established independent predictor of adverse prognosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) even with improvements in diabetes treatment and interventional techniques. The aim of this study was to compare long term post PCI outcome between diabetic and non-diabetic patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Method: The data was derived from a prospective observational study to evaluate the outcome after PCI in DM patients for 2 years. A total of 305 patients with IHD & DM were randomly selected and enrolled who underwent PCI from 2010 to 2013 in an urban cardiac hospital of Bangladesh. The study population were divided into two groups with group 1 consisting of patients with DM (n=108) and group 2 of patients without DM (n=197). After the PCI, all patients were followed up for 2 years. The incidences of bleeding, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and repeat revascularization were compared. Results: Diabetic patients had significant adverse outcomes having MI, stroke & MACCE respectively following 1 year (p= 0.018, 0.036 & 0.017) and MI following 2 years (p= 0.013) compared to non-diabetic patients. However, in multivariate analysis, diabetes mellitus was not found to be an independent predictor for 1-year & 2-year adverse events following PCI [OR 1.016 (0.317-3.259) & p 0.979, after 1 year and 1.554 (0.087 – 27.902) & p 0.765, after 2 years]. Conclusions: The outcome of PCI after 1 year and 2 years among diabetic and non-diabetic subjects with IHD differed significantly in respect of MI, stroke & MACCE. But this study failed to identify diabetes mellitus as an independent risk factor for 1-year and 2-year adverse outcomes. Cardiovasc j 2022; 15(1): 5-12

Background: Early detection and appropriate management play a key role in reducing the morbidity and mortality of acute heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Many prognostic factors have been assessed till date. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic effect of NLR on in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute heart failure due to acute anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: The present study was carried out in the Department of cardiology, Sir Salimullah Medical College & Mitford Hospital, Dhaka from January 2020 to December 2020. A total of 88 cases of acute heart failure due to acute anterior ST elevation Myocardial infarction patients are enrolled in this study. NLR was estimated and patients were divided into two groups based on the NLR (Group I NLR <6; Group II NLR ≥6). Then in-hospital outcome was observed and compared between two groups. Results: In-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay were higher among NLR ≥6 patients with statistical significance (11.6% vs. 40.9%, p<0.001). These patients also had high incidence of cardiogenic shock (25% vs. 43%, p>0.072), Arrhythmia (18% vs. 34%, p>0.089) but without statistically significant difference. Conclusion: In this study, we observed that in-hospital outcomes were worse in patients with acute heart failure due to acute anterior myocardial infarction with NLR ≥6. So NLR can be used as a predictor of outcome in acute heart failure patients. This association is independent of conventional cardiovascular risk factors. Cardiovasc j 2022; 15(1): 13-19

Coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs) are not very uncommon but giant coronary artery aneurysms are rare with a reported prevalence of 0.02% to 0.2%. Recently, with the advent of implantation of drugeluting stents, there are increasing reports suggesting stents causing coronary aneurysms, months or years after the procedure. Though most of the CAAs are asymptomatic, they may present with various clinical presentations like angina pectoris, fistula formation, pericardial tamponade, compression of surrounding structures, congestive cardiac failure or sudden death. The natural history and prognosis remain unclear. Despite the important anatomical abnormality of the coronary artery, the treatment options of CAAs are still poorly defined and present a therapeutic challenge. We report a case of iatrogenic giant CAA following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with its relevant management strategy. Cardiovasc j 2022; 15(1): 88-94

No abstract