Background Troponin elevation is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but underlying aetiologies are ill-defined. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess myocardial injury in recovered COVID-19 patients. Methods and results One hundred and forty-eight patients (64 ± 12 years, 70% male) with severe COVID-19 infection [all requiring hospital admission, 48 (32%) requiring ventilatory support] and troponin elevation discharged from six hospitals underwent convalescent CMR (including adenosine stress perfusion if indicated) at median 68 days. Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% (ejection fraction 67% ± 11%). Late gadolinium enhancement and/or ischaemia was found in 54% (80/148). This comprised myocarditis-like scar in 26% (39/148), infarction and/or ischaemia in 22% (32/148) and dual pathology in 6% (9/148). Myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or less myocardial segments in 88% (35/40) of cases with no associated LV dysfunction; of these, 30% had active myocarditis. Myocardial infarction was found in 19% (28/148) and inducible ischaemia in 26% (20/76) of those undergoing stress perfusion (including 7 with both infarction and ischaemia). Of patients with ischaemic injury pattern, 66% (27/41) had no past history of coronary disease. There was no evidence of diffuse fibrosis or oedema in the remote myocardium (T1: COVID-19 patients 1033 ± 41 ms vs. matched controls 1028 ± 35 ms; T2: COVID-19 46 ± 3 ms vs. matched controls 47 ± 3 ms). Conclusions During convalescence after severe COVID-19 infection with troponin elevation, myocarditis-like injury can be encountered, with limited extent and minimal functional consequence. In a proportion of patients, there is evidence of possible ongoing localized inflammation. A quarter of patients had ischaemic heart disease, of which two-thirds had no previous history. Whether these observed findings represent pre-existing clinically silent disease or de novo COVID-19-related changes remain undetermined. Diffuse oedema or fibrosis was not detected.

No abstract

AimsPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the optimal treatment for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). An elevated index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) reflects microvascular function and when measured after PPCI, it can predict an adverse clinical outcome. We measured coronary microvascular function in STEMI patients and compared sequential changes before and after stent implantation.Methods and resultsIn 85 STEMI patients, fractional flow reserve, coronary flow reserve, and IMR were measured using a pressure wire (Certus, St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) immediately before and after stent implantation. Stenting significantly improved all of the measured parameters of coronary physiology including IMR from 67.7 [interquartile range (IQR): 56.2–95.8] to 36.7 (IQR: 22.7–59.5), P < 0.001. However, after stenting, IMR remained elevated (>40) in 28 (32.9%) patients. In 15 of these patients (17.6% of the cohort), only a partial reduction in IMR occurred and these patients were more likely to be late presenters (pain to wire time >6 h). The extent of jeopardized myocardium [standardized beta: −0.26 (IMR unit/Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation score unit), P: 0.009] and pre-stenting IMR [standardized beta: −0.34 (IMR unit), P: 0.001] predicted a reduction in IMR after stenting (ΔIMR = post-stenting IMR − pre-stenting IMR), whereas thrombotic burden [standardized beta: 0.24 (IMR unit/thrombus score unit), P: 0.01] and deployed stent volume [standardized beta: 0.26 (IMR unit/mm3 of stent), P: 0.01] were associated with a potentially deleterious increase in IMR.ConclusionImproved perfusion of the myocardium by stent deployment during PPCI is not universal. The causes of impaired microvascular function at the completion of PPCI treatment are heterogeneous, but can reflect a later clinical presentation and/or the location and extent of the thrombotic burden.