After acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, a considerable number of patients remains symptomatic with pathological changes in various organ systems. This study aimed to relate the physical and mental burden of symptoms of long COVID patients to the findings of a somatic evaluation. In patients with persistent long COVID symptoms three months after acute infection we assessed physical and mental health status using the SF-36 questionnaire. The cohort was dichotomised by the results (upper two quartiles vs. lower to quartiles) and compared with regard to transthoracic echocardiography, body plethysmography (including diffusion capacity), capillary blood gas analysis and 6-min walk test (6-MWT). From February 22 to September 13, 2021, 463 patients were prospectively examined, of which 367 completed the SF-36 questionnaire. A positive correlation between initial disease severity (need for hospitalization, intensive care medicine) and resulting symptom burden at follow-up could be demonstrated. Patients with impaired subjective physical and mental status were significantly more likely to be women. There was a significant correlation between symptom severity and reduced exercise tolerance in the 6-MWT (495.6 ± 83.7 m vs 549.7 ± 71.6 m, p < 0.001) and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (85.6 ± 14.3% of target vs 94.5 ± 14.4, p < 0.001). In long COVID patients, initial disease severity is correlated with symptom burden after at least 3 months of follow-up. Highly symptomatic long COVID patients show impaired diffusion capacity and 6-MWT despite average or mildly affected mechanical lung parameters. It must be further differentiated whether this corresponds to a transient functional impairment or whether it is a matter of defined organ damage.

Background: Data on the relation between non-emergency and emergency cardiac admission rates during the COVID-19 lockdown and post-lockdown period are sparse. Methods: Consecutive cardiac patients admitted to our tertiary heart center between 1 January and 30 June 2020 were included. The observation period of 6 months was analyzed in total and divided into three defined time periods: the pre-lockdown (1 January–19 March), lockdown (20 March–19 April), and post-lockdown (20 April–30 June) period. These were compared to the reference periods 2019 and 2022 using daily admission rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results: Over the observation period from 1 January to 30 June, cardiac admissions (including non-emergency and emergency) were comparable between 2019, 2020, and 2022 (n = 2889, n = 2952, n = 2956; p = 0.845). However, when compared to the reference period 2019, non-emergency admissions decreased in 2020 (1364 vs. 1663; p = 0.02), while emergency admissions significantly increased (1588 vs. 1226; p < 0.001). Further analysis of the lockdown period revealed that non-emergency admissions dropped by 82% (IRR 0.18; 95%-CI 0.14–0.24; p < 0.001) and 42% fewer invasive cardiac interventions were performed (p < 0.001), whereas the post-lockdown period showed a 52% increase of emergency admissions (IRR 1.47; 95%-CI 1.31–1.65; p < 0.001) compared to 2019. Conclusions: We demonstrate a drastic surge of emergency cardiac admissions post-COVID-19 related lockdown suggesting that patients who did not keep their non-emergency appointment had to be admitted as an emergency later on.

ObjectiveDeferral of non-emergency cardiac procedures is associated with increased early emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation. This study aimed to identify predictors of worse clinical outcome after deferral of non-emergency cardiovascular interventions.MethodsThis observational case-control study included consecutive patients whose non-emergency cardiac intervention has been postponed during COVID-19-related lockdown between 19 March and 30 April 2020 (n=193). Cox regression was performed to identify predictors of the combined 1-year end point emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation and death. All patients undergoing non-emergency interventions in the corresponding time period 2019 served as control group (n=216).ResultsThe combined end point of death and emergency cardiovascular hospitalisation occurred in 70 (36.3%) of 193 patients with a postponed cardiovascular intervention. The planned intervention was deferred by a median of 23 (19–36) days. Arterial hypertension (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.00 to 5.12; p=0.049), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.89; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.49; p=0.041) as well as severe valvular heart disease (HR 3.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 5.64; p<0.001) were independent predictors of death or emergency hospitalisation. Kaplan-Maier estimators of the combined end point were 31% in patients with arterial hypertension, 56% in patients with severe valvular heart disease and 77% with both risk factors (HR 12.4, 95% CI 3.8 to 40.7; p<0.001) and only 9% in patients without these risk factors (log rank p<0.001). N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) cut-point of ≥1109 pg/mL best predicts the occurrence of primary end point event in deferred patients (area under the curve 0.71; p<0.001; sensitivity 63.8%, specificity 69.4%).ConclusionOur results suggest that patients with either arterial hypertension, chronic kidney or severe valvular heart disease are at very high risk for emergency hospitalisation and increased mortality in case of postponed cardiac interventions even in supposed stable clinical status. Risk seems to be even higher in patients suffering from a combination of these conditions. If the ongoing or future pandemics force hospitals again to postpone cardiac interventions, the biomarker NT-proBNP is an applicable parameter for outpatient monitoring to identify those at risk for adverse cardiovascular events.