IMR Press / RCM / Volume 23 / Issue 12 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2312404
Cite this article
Nanoparticles: Properties, applications and toxicities
60
Downloads
190
Views
Submit to RCM
Review for RCM
Apply for Special Issue
Chapters
Figures
References
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
Acknowledgment
Funding
Conflict of Interest
References
Open Access Systematic Review
Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Relevant Meta-Analyses
Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis1,*, Ioannis G Kyriakoulis1, Ioannis P Trontzas1, Nikolaos Syrigos1, Ioanna A Kyprianou1, Eleni Fyta1, Anastasios Kollias1
Show Less
1 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Third Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, 11527 Athens, Greece
*Correspondence: konkyriakoulis@gmail.com (Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis)
Academic Editor: Alpo Vuorio
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23(12), 404; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2312404
Submitted: 18 May 2022 | Revised: 5 September 2022 | Accepted: 20 October 2022 | Published: 12 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cardiovascular Health and COVID-19)
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Download PDF
Brower Figures
Cite
Abstract

Background: Cardiac injury (CI) is not a rare condition among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Its prognostic value has been extensively reported through the literature, mainly in the context of observational studies. An impressive number of relevant meta-analyses has been conducted. These meta-analyses present similar and consistent results; yet interesting methodological issues emerge. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted aiming to identify all relevant meta-analyses on (i) the incidence, and (ii) the prognostic value of CI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results: Among 118 articles initially retrieved, 73 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Various criteria were used for CI definition mainly based on elevated cardiac biomarkers levels. The most frequently used biomarker was troponin. 30 meta-analyses reported the pooled incidence of CI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that varies from 5% to 37%. 32 meta-analyses reported on the association of CI with COVID-19 infection severity, with only 6 of them failing to show a statistically significant association. Finally, 46 meta-analyses investigated the association of CI with mortality and showed that patients with COVID-19 with CI had increased risk for worse prognosis. Four meta-analyses reported pooled adjusted hazard ratios for death in patients with COVID-19 and CI vs those without CI ranging from 1.5 to 3. Conclusions: The impact of CI on the prognosis of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has gained great interest during the pandemic. Methodological issues such as the inclusion of not peer-reviewed studies, the inclusion of potentially overlapping populations or the inclusion of studies with unadjusted analyses for confounders should be taken into consideration. Despite these limitations, the adverse prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and CI has been consistently demonstrated.

Keywords
COVID-19
cardiac injury
prognosis
mortality
meta-analysis
1. Introduction

Cardiac injury (CI) is not a rare phenomenon among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [1, 2, 3]. Its definition involves the increase of cardiac biomarkers levels, and it has been most commonly defined as an increase in cardiac troponin levels above the 99th percentile upper reference limit [1, 2, 3]. CI is more frequent among severe and critically ill patients [2, 3, 4] and serves as a prognostic factor for poor COVID-19 related outcomes and increased mortality [2, 3, 5, 6].

The exact mechanisms of CI in patients with COVID-19 are not well understood and clearly established. High troponin levels may be attributed to a variety of conditions affecting cardiac function (e.g., type 2 myocardial infarction, myocarditis, stress cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism) and do not necessarily indicate a true type 1 myocardial infarction [2, 7]. Based on these considerations, the American College of Cardiology commented early on during the pandemic on the use of cardiac biomarkers in patients with COVID-19 and advised “to only measure troponin or natriuretic peptides if the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction or heart failure are being considered on clinical grounds” [8]. The rational of this recommendation was that in many cases resources will be wasted and risk of exposure will be unacceptably high, seeking a type 1 myocardial infarction that is far less common (prevalence among patients with COVID-19 not still defined) than the multifactorial non-atherosclerotic CI (prevalence in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 about 21% [1]).

Cardiac involvement has been a major concern in COVID-19, and subsequently this recommendation has been recently slightly modified, with investigation for cardiac involvement (including troponin levels measurement) recommended in case of “symptoms suggestive of cardiac involvement, including chest pain/pressure, dyspnea, palpitations, and syncope” [3]. Interestingly, according to the recent consensus document by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): “as in patients without COVID-19, cardiac troponin T/I concentrations should be measured whenever, on clinical grounds, type 1 myocardial infarction is suspected” [2]. According to the ESC, troponin levels may offer some prognostic information, however better prognostic tools have been developed and the risk of inappropriate diagnostic or therapeutic interventions may increase [2].

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, an impressive number of meta-analyses have been conducted aiming to investigate the incidence of CI and its impact on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The aim of the current systematic review is to identify and summarize these relevant meta-analyses.

2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Search Strategy

A systematic PubMed search was conducted in line with PRISMA recommendations independently by two investigators (KGK and IPT) [9]. Literature search was conducted using the algorithm (“coronavirus 2019” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus disease 2019”) AND (troponin OR “cardiac injury” OR “myocardial injury”) AND (“meta-analysis” OR metaanalysis) until May 04, 2022. Articles were also selected from references of relevant articles and by hand search. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a senior author (AK).

2.2 Selection of Studies

Eligible studies were full-text meta-analysis articles in English that investigated: (i) the incidence of CI among COVID-19 hospitalized patients, and/or (ii) the association and impact of CI on COVID-19 infection severity and/or mortality. Studies on the impact of CI on COVID-19-related outcomes used two different approaches/kind of analyses: (i) comparison/prediction of outcome in CI vs non-CI patients [odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR) used as outcomes of interest in this case], and (ii) comparison/difference of cardiac biomarker levels (e.g., troponin) in mild vs severe disease, severe vs critical disease or survivors vs non-survivors depending on the population included in each study. Outcomes of interest in the latter case were measures of pooled difference between the two comparison groups [e.g., standardized mean difference (SMD), weighted mean difference (WMD)].

Meta-analyses on pediatric populations were excluded. In meta-analyses that included studies based on different definitions of CI, data based on troponin level were deemed more suitable for extraction. In studies where results were reported based on both troponin level (as a continuous variable) and CI status (as a dichotomous variable based on troponin cutoffs), data on CI as a dichotomous variable were extracted.

2.3 Data Extraction

Data concerning the aims and outcomes of interest, the literature search period, the number of included studies and patients, the CI definition and the main findings of each included meta-analysis were extracted, tabulated and reviewed by all authors.

3. Results

Among 118 articles initially retrieved, 73 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review [1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]. The search strategy and flowchart for the selection of studies are shown in Fig. 1. Main characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1 (Ref. [1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]). It should be noted that Table 1 was drafted in an effort to balance the trade-off between accuracy of findings and simplicity for the average reader. Some studies have conducted several different analyses (severe vs critical disease, mild vs severe disease, mild vs critical disease, severe vs non-severe disease, survivors vs non-survivors etc.) including a different number of included primary studies in each analysis and subsequently different number of included patients. All these data could not possibly be presented in detail as the aim of Table 1 is to provide a rough overview of the literature while trying not to be exhaustive or reader unfriendly. The main and most important findings of our systematic review are plotted in the graphical summary presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1.

Flowchart for the selection of the included studies.

Fig. 2.

Graphical summary of the main findings of the present systematic review. (A) Meta-analyses reporting incidence of cardiac injury. (B) Meta-analyses reporting odds ratio for severe disease in patients with cardiac injury. (C) Meta-analyses reporting odds ratio for mortality in patients with cardiac injury. (D) Meta-analyses reporting adjusted hazard ratio for mortality in patients with cardiac injury.

Table 1.Meta-analyses on cardiac injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Study Study outcome Literature search (until dd.mm.yyyy) N of included studies N of patients Cardiac injury definition Main Findings (95% CI)
Ogungbe et al. [52] ∙ Incidence of CI 08.2021 21367 (incidence) Troponin I or T ∙ Incidence 18.5% (17.9, 19.0)
∙ CI and severity 16 (OR) ∙ Severity OR 1.93 (1.45, 2.40)/HR 1.75 (1.48, 2.10)
∙ CI and mortality 20 (HR) ∙ Mortality OR 1.72 (1.32, 2.25)/HR 1.51 (1.31, 1.75)
Changal et al. [51] ∙ Incidence of CI 01.05.2020 7 12577 Troponin I or T ∙ Incidence 27.2% (9.2–51)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ Mortality HR 2.43 (2.28, 3.60)
Ma et al. [50] ∙ Incidence of CI 08.09.2021 60 (incidence) 50284 (incidence) Troponin I ∙ Incidence 22.9% (19, 27)
∙ CI and severity ∙ Severity OR 7.06 (3.94, 12.65)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ Mortality OR 7.75 (4.4, 13.66)
An et al. [49] ∙ CI and severity 09.05.2021 28 (severity) 7812 (severity) Troponin ∙ Severity SMD 0.81 U/L (0.14, 1.48)
∙ CI and mortality 41 (mortality) 9532 (mortality) ∙ Mortality SMD 0.51 U/L (0.37, 0.64)
Zhu et al. [48] ∙ CI and mortality 27.06.2020 9 NR Troponin I ∙ Mortality RR 7.01 (5.64, 8.71)
∙ CI and severity ∙ Severity OR 1.76 (0.61, 5.07)
∙ Severity SMD 0.48 (–0.18, 1.14)
Abate et al. [47] ∙ Incidence of CI 05.2021 37 (incidence) 21204 (incidence) Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 22.3% (17.9, 26.8)
∙ CI and mortality 15 (mortality) ∙ Mortality OR 8.12 (5.19, 12.71)
Katzenschlager et al. [46] ∙ CI and mortality 31.05.2020 13 NR Troponin I ∙ DoM 21.88 pg/mL (9.78, 33.99)
Zinellu et al. [45] ∙ CI and severity 01.2021 55 11791 CK-MB ∙ SMD 0.81 (0.61, 1.01)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ RR 2.84 (1.89, 4.27)
Long et al. [44] ∙ CI and mortality 09.11.2020 12 2708 High-sensitive Troponin I or T ∙ OR 13.25 (8.56, 20.52)
Wu et al. [43] ∙ CI and mortality 26.05.2020 4 (MD) NR Troponin ∙ MD 66.65 pg/mL (16.94, 116.36)
6 (OR) ∙ OR 25.16 (6.56, 96.44)
Patel et al. [42] ∙ Incidence of CI 30.06.2020 11 1361 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 14.5% (12.7, 16.4)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ OR 9.93 (3.95–25.0)
Cheng et al. [41] ∙ Incidence of CI 29.08.2020 57 34072 Troponin ∙ Incidence 21% (18, 26)
Toloui et al. [40] ∙ Incidence of CI 30.04.2020 26 (incidence) NR Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 19.5% (18.23, 20.72)
∙ CI and mortality 14 (mortality) ∙ OR 14.24 (8.67–23.38)
Alzahrani et al. [39] ∙ Incidence of CI 11.04.2020 7 1380 Troponin I or T ∙ Incidence 20.6% (17.2, 24.0)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ SMD 2.15 (0.83, 3.47)
∙ RR 5.28 (3.71, 7.51)
Zhao et al. [38] ∙ Incidence of CI 30.11.2020 8 NR Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 21.2% (12.3, 30.0)
Tiruneh et al. [37] ∙ Incidence of CI 10.04.2020 14 1215 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 6.4% (2.8, 15.6)
Kansestani et al. [53] ∙ CI and severity 30.07.2020 7 (severity) 1142 (severity) Troponin I ∙ Sensitivity/specificity for critical/noncritical and survivors/non-survivors prognosis 0.35/0.94 and 0.59/0.88, respectively
∙ CI and mortality 8 (mortality) 4054 (mortality)
Dalia et al. [36] ∙ CI and severity 07.06.2020 14 3623 Troponin I ∙ MD 77.9 pg/mL (–6.47, 162.33)
Wungu et al. [35] ∙ CI and severity 08.2020 7 (severity) 1163 (severity) Troponin ∙ Severity SMD 0.77 (–0.37, 1.92)
∙ CI and mortality 9 (mortality) 3886 (mortality) ∙ Mortality SMD 1.64 (0.83, 2.45)
Qiang et al. [34] ∙ CI and severity NA NA NA NA ∙ OR 11.83
Wibowo et al. [33] ∙ Incidence of CI 16.12.2020 13 12262 Troponin ∙ Incidence 31% (23–38)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ OR 4.75 (4.07, 5.53)
Sheth et al. [32] ∙ CI and severity 15.04.2020 15 1715 Troponin ∙ Severity WMD 0.28 (–0.14, 0.69)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ Mortality WMD 0.61 (0.46–0.76)
∙ Mortality OR 6.641 (1.26, 35.1)
Sahranavard et al. [31] ∙ Incidence of CI 16.04.2020 13 (incidence) NR Troponin I ∙ Incidence 17.85% (13.18–23.72)
∙ CI and mortality 4 (mortality) ∙ MD 31.8 pg/mL (17.9, 45.7)
Koeppen et al. [30] ∙ Incidence of CI 25.11.2020 14 927 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 30% (19, 42)
Chaudhary et al. [29] ∙ CI and severity 11.07.2020 18 3375 Depending on each study ∙ WMD 10.69 (7.02, 14.36)
∙ CI and mortality
Zhong et al. [28] ∙ Incidence of CI 12.04.2020 15 1118 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 37.1% (27.4-47.4)
Mudatsir et al. [27] ∙ CI and severity 04.04.2020 6 530 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ OR 9.25 (3.51, 24.37)
∙ SMD 1.22 (0.69, 1.74)
Zhang et al. [26] ∙ CI and severity 10.04.2020 4 612 Depending on each study ∙ OR 6.35 (1.22, 33.14)
Hu et al. [25] ∙ Incidence of CI 26.07.2020 7 (incidence) NR Troponin I or T ∙ Incidence 29% (13, 45)
∙ CI and severity ∙ OR 4.71 (2.23, 9.92)
Fu et al. [24] ∙ Incidence of CI 07.2020 21 (incidence) 6297 (incidence) Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 22% (16, 28)
∙ CI and mortality 10 (mortality) ∙ OR 10.11 (4.49, 22.77)
Zhao et al. [23] ∙ Incidence of CI 15.10.2020 35 (incidence) 22473 (incidence) Troponin ∙ Incidence 20.8% (16.8, 25.0)
∙ CI and mortality 11 (mortality) 13889 (mortality) ∙ Adjusted RR 2.68 (2.08, 3.46)
Hessami et al. [22] ∙ Incidence of CI 27.05.2020 6 (incidence) NR Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 15.6% (5.15, 47.12)
∙ CI and mortality 12 (mortality) ∙ OR 13.29 (7.35, 24.03)
Malik et al. [21] ∙ CI and severity 15.08.2020 10 3982 Hypersensitive Troponin I ∙ OR 7.92 (3.70, 16.97)
Huang et al. [20] ∙ Incidence of CI 05.06.2020 43 (incidence) 9475 (incidence) Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 19% (15, 22)
∙ CI and mortality 20 (mortality) ∙ Pooled ES 4.99 (3.38, 7.37)
Vakhshoori et al. [19] ∙ Incidence of CI 25.03.2020 7 970 Troponin, electrocardiography, echocardiography ∙ Incidence 15% (11, 20)
Bansal et al. [18] ∙ CI and mortality 17.06.2020 8 1609 Depending on each study ∙ RR 7.79 (4.69, 13.01)
Mesas et al. [17] ∙ CI and mortality 27.07.2020 15 NR Troponin ∙ MD 0.02 ng/mL (0.02, 0.02)
∙ Pooled ES 0.91 (0.13, 1.70)
Prasitlumkum et al. [16] ∙ Incidence of CI 08.2020 27 8971 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 20% (16.1, 23.8)
Zeng et al. [15] ∙ CI and mortality 02.05.2020 NR NR Troponin ∙ RR 4.89 (3.84, 6.22)
Walker et al. [14] ∙ CI and severity 10.07.2020 22 4468 Troponin I, CK-MB ∙ MD 0.54 ng/mL (0.36, 0.72) (troponin)
Vakili et al. [13] ∙ Incidence of CI 01.05.2020 15 NR Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 15.68% (11.1, 20.97)
Luo et al. [12] ∙ CI and severity 07.2020 11 (incidence) NR Depending on each study ∙ Severity OR 6.57 (3.7, 11.65)
∙ CI and mortality 14 (mortality) ∙ Mortality OR 11.03 (6.74, 18.05)
Moutchia et al. [11] ∙ CI and severity 18.04.2022 8 2379 Troponin I ∙ MMD 0.01 ng/ml (0.00, 0.02)
Gu et al. [1] ∙ Incidence of CI 24.04..2020 53 7679 Troponin, CK-MB, electrocardiography, echocardiography ∙ Incidence 21% (17, 25)
Shoar et al. [5] ∙ CI and mortality 15.03.2020 12 1845 Depending on each study ∙ OR 20.3 (7.8, 53.3)
Danwang et al. [79] ∙ CI and severity 18.04.2020 4 (CK-MB) 1150 (CK-MB) Troponin I, CK-MB ∙ SMD 0.68 (0.48, 0.87) (CK-MB)
2 (Troponin-I) 430 (Troponin I) ∙ SMD 0.71 (0.42, 1.00) (Troponin I)
Zou et al. [78] ∙ Incidence of CI 30.05.2020 16 2224 Troponin ∙ Incidence 24.4% (22.6, 26.2)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ OR 17.83 (10.89, 29.21)
Sanz-Sánchez et al. [77] ∙ CI and mortality 08.07.2020 14 6462 Depending on each study ∙ OR 9.16 (5.30, 15.83)
∙ Adjusted HR 1.62 (1.35, 1.94) (data from 4 studies)
Khinda et al. [76] ∙ CI and severity 01.05.2020 50 (severity) 11173 (severity) High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ Severity WMD 11.07 pg/mL (3.64, 18.50)
∙ CI and mortality 15 (mortality) 2525 (mortality) ∙ Mortality WMD 90.47 pg/mL (47.79, 133.14)
Wu et al. [10] ∙ CI and severity 13.05.2020 NR NR High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ WMD 15.99 pg/mL (6.24, 25.74)
Ghahramani et al. [75] ∙ CI and severity 03.03.2020 5 3396 Troponin I ∙ SMD 0.27 (–0.14, 0.67)*
Zuin et al. [74] ∙ Incidence of CI 10.04.2020 9 1686 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 23.9% (21.9, 26.1)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ OR 21.6 (8.6, 54.4)
Li et al. [73] ∙ CI and severity 30.03.2020 9 1548 Troponin I ∙ Severity RR 5.57 (3.04, 10.22)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ Mortality RR 5.64 (2.69, 11.83)
Zhao et al. [72] ∙ CI and severity 08.02.2020 2 179 Depending on each study ∙ RR 10.32 (3.05, 34.96)
De Lorenzo et al. [71] ∙ Incidence of CI 04.02.2020 8 1229 Troponin ∙ Incidence 16% (9, 27)
Momtazmanesh et al. [70] ∙ Incidence of CI 21.04.2020 16 2647 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 25.3% (19.5, 31.1)
∙ CI and severity ∙ Severity OR 6.28 (4.22, 9.80) (17 studies)
∙ CI and mortality ∙ Mortality OR 19.64 (10.28, 37.53)
Liu et al. [69] ∙ Incidence of CI 22.05.2020 26 4753 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 13% (8, 18)
Potere et al. [68] ∙ Incidence of CI 10.04.2020 10 (peer- reviewed) 2389 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 15% (11, 20), peer reviewed studies
10 (not peer-reviewed) ∙ Incidence 5% (2, 10), not peer reviewed studies
Parohan et al. [67] ∙ CI and severity 20.05.2020 4 (severity) 852 (severity) Troponin I ∙ Severity WMD 4.05 pg/mL (–0.20, 8.30)*
∙ CI and mortality 3 (mortality) 1230 (mortality) ∙ Mortality WMD 26.35 pg/mL (14.54, 38.15)
Huang et al. [4] ∙ CI and severity 12.02.2020 2 179 Depending on each study ∙ OR 13.48 (3.60, 50.47) for CI in severe vs non-severe
Vrsalovic et al. [66] ∙ CI and mortality NR 2 940 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ Adjusted HR 3.08 (1.95, 4.87)
Kollias et al. [65] ∙ CI and mortality 30.05.2020 3 3956 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ Adjusted HR 2.3 (1.3, 4.1)
Toraih et al. [64] ∙ CI and severity/mortality 08.05.2020 31 32 Troponin I ∙ OR 5.22 (3.73, 7.31)†
Aikawa et al. [63] ∙ CI and mortality 13.04.2020 6 1231 High-sensitive Troponin ∙ OR 22.7 (13.6, 38.1)
Li et al. [62] ∙ CI and mortality 14.04.2020 8 1429 Depending on each study ∙ OR 21.15 (10.19, 43.94)
Tian et al. [61] ∙ CI and mortality 24.04.2020 3 615 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ WMD 44.2 ng/L (19.0, 69.4)
Vrsalovic et al. [60] ∙ CI and mortality 30.04.2020 3 803 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ Adjusted HR 2.48 (1.50, 4.11)
Shao et al. [59] ∙ CI and mortality 30.03.2020 9 1470 Troponin ∙ OR 13.68 (9.81, 19.08)
Zheng et al. [58] ∙ CI and severity/mortality 20.03.2020 2 186 High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ OR 43.24 (9.92, 188.49) for CI in severe/death vs non-severe
Santoso et al. [57] ∙ CI and severity 29.03.2020 3 (severity) 622 (severity) High-sensitive Troponin I ∙ Severity RR 13.81 (5.52, 34.52)
∙ CI and mortality 7 (mortality) 1550 (mortality) ∙ Mortality RR 7.95 (5.12, 12.34)
Li et al. [56] ∙ CI and severity 27.03.2020 14 (severity) NR Troponin, electrocardiography, echocardiography ∙ Severity SMD 0.53 (0.30, 0.75) (troponin)
∙ CI and mortality 9 (mortality) ∙ Mortality RR 3.85 (2.13, 6.96)
Lippi et al. [55] ∙ CI and severity 04.03.2020 4 341 Troponin I ∙ SMD 25.6 ng/L (6.8, 44.5)
Li et al. [54] ∙ Incidence of CI 02.2020 2 179 Depending on each study ∙ Incidence 8% (4, 12)
CI, cardiac injury; CIs, confidence intervals; CK-MB, Creatine Kinase-MB; DoM, difference of medians; ES, effect size; HR, hazard ratio; hsTropI, high sensitive Troponin I; ICU, intensive care unit; MD, mean difference; MMD, meta-mean difference; NA, data not available (no full text available); NR, not reported; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk; SMD, Standardized mean difference; WMD, weighted mean difference. *not statistically significant. †conversion of SMD to OR.

Not any meta-analysis was excluded due to non-English language. The majority of studies (46 studies) reported the impact of CI on mortality (Table 1) [5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78]. Among the different statistical indices, OR was the most frequently used (29 studies) [4, 5, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 70, 74, 77, 78], while RR and HR were used in 10 [15, 18, 23, 39, 45, 48, 56, 57, 72, 73] and 6 studies [51, 52, 60, 65, 66, 77], respectively. A minority of meta-analyses investigated pooled differences of cardiac biomarkers between severe vs non-severe disease or survivors vs non survivors (Table 1). Certain meta-analyses included primary research papers that had not undergone peer review process [68], while two meta-analyses were not initially peer-reviewed [80, 81]. However, both these meta-analyses were later formally peer-reviewed and published, and thus they were finally included in our systematic review [32, 46]. In most meta-analyses, Chinese studies were the main source of evidence [16, 45, 64, 79], some of them available only in Chinese language. Zinellu et al. [45] performed a meta-analysis of 55 studies (including 11,791 hospitalized patients with COVID-19), aiming to investigate the association of CI (defined as elevated creatine kinase-MB levels) with COVID-19 severity and subsequent mortality. Among the included studies in this meta-analysis, 95% (n = 52) were conducted in China [45]. Similarly in a meta-analysis of 27 studies investigating the incidence of CI among patients with COVID-19, 81% of the included studies (n = 22) were conducted in China [16].

3.1 Definition of CI

Among the included meta-analyses, several different definitions were used as inclusion criteria for studies reporting CI in patients with COVID-19. Some meta-analyses required CI definition to be based on high-sensitive troponin I [76], while others did not have strict limitations and included studies with different CI definitions [5]. It should be noted that definitions were mainly based on cardiac biomarkers kinetics, while rarely included electrocardiographic and/or echocardiographic findings additionally assessed and used for CI definition (Table 1).

3.2. Sample Size—Literature Search Date

Sample size varied across the included meta-analyses. Ma et al. [50] reported CI incidence of about 23% among 50284 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, Li et al. [54] (one of the earliest meta-analyses including 2 studies) reported the incidence of CI (8%) among a sample of 179 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Interestingly, the number of patients was significantly greater in studies (or different sub-analyses within the same study) evaluating the incidence and epidemiology of CI than in studies/analyses investigating the prognostic value of CI [31, 40, 41, 47, 50] (Table 1).

Literature search dates varied from study to study and were directly associated with the time of publication. The most updated literature search was included in the meta-analysis by Ma et al. [50] and corresponds to literature search until September 2021.

3.3 Incidence of CI among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19

30 meta-analyses reported the incidence of CI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 [1, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 54, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 78]. The estimated pooled incidence ranged across meta-analyses from 5% [68] to 37% [28]. However, the 5% finding was not based on peer-reviewed evidence and might be subject to limitations [68].

3.4 CI Impact on COVID-19 Severity

32 studies reported on the impact of CI on COVID-19 infection severity or the difference in cardiac biomarkers levels between patients with severe vs non-severe COVID-19 infection [4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 64, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79]. Statistical indices used were OR and RR for impact on outcome evaluation and SMD and WMD for difference in biomarkers levels evaluation (Table 1). Nearly all studies demonstrated significant associations between CI and severity of COVID-19 infection. Only 6 studies failed to show a significant association [32, 35, 36, 48, 67, 75].

3.5 CI impact on COVID-19 Mortality

46 meta-analyses analyzed the impact of CI on COVID-19 mortality. Statistical indices most commonly used were OR, HR and RR. Interestingly adjusted HR was used only in 4 meta-analyses [60, 65, 66, 77]. WMD was also used, to provide difference in biomarkers levels among COVID-19 survivors vs non-survivors. All studies demonstrated a significant effect of CI on COVID-19 infection mortality. OR ranged from 1.72 to 43.24, however it was found to be about 10–15 in most of the included meta-analyses (Table 1). Adjusted HR used in four meta-analyses as reported above [60, 65, 66, 77], which is generally more representative of the reality due to adjustment for several confounding factors, barely passed the value 3.

4. Discussion

The aim of the present systematic review was to identify all meta-analyses that have been conducted regarding the incidence and impact of CI in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. An impressive number of 73 meta-analyses were identified. 46 and 32 meta-analyses investigated the impact of CI on COVID-19 mortality and disease severity, respectively. 30 meta-analyses investigated CI incidence among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The majority of meta-analyses demonstrated the prognostic value of CI and the association with poor COVID-19 related outcomes. The incidence of CI presented significant heterogeneity among included analyses (from 5 to 37%), however it should be emphasized that CI was demonstrated not to be a rare clinical condition.

After a systematic literature search, four potentially relevant meta-analyses were excluded: three on pediatric populations [82, 83, 84] and one dealing exclusively with the impact of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level on COVID-19 mortality [85]. Among the finally included meta-analyses, those on CI and COVID-19 severity/mortality were arithmetically more numerous, yet with significantly smaller sample sizes compared with those evaluating the incidence of CI. Patients included in the analyses were hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with different levels of disease severity (e.g., meta-analyses of studies in general wards or ICU). The heterogeneity of reported incidence could be partially attributed to this fact. Additionally, literature search dates varied from meta-analysis to meta-analysis and were directly linked to the publication date of each paper. The time period difference between literature and publication dates mainly depicts timing issues of publication procedures of the involved journals. Regarding the robustness of the conclusions of the included meta-analysis, it should be noted that the vast majority were in line regarding a harmful effect of CI on COVID-19 severity and mortality. Only a few studies evaluating COVID-19 severity failed to demonstrate this association. Severity assessment may present differences and discrepancies among different analyses, however the harmful effect of CI was concretely demonstrated when death—the ultimate hard endpoint—was considered.

Among meta-analyses and primary research studies included in these meta-analyses there is significant heterogeneity concerning a variety of methodological aspects [65]: (i) some meta-analyses often include studies from the same hospital. In this way data derived from overlapping populations are introduced into the analysis. This is always a tricky and crucial part when conducting a meta-analysis. In case of same hospital studies, communication with all corresponding authors should ensure that included studies do not include overlapping populations, leading to over- or underestimation of findings; (ii) certain meta-analyses include only primary research studies from China [16, 45, 67]. Generalisation of conclusions should be carefully and critically considered; (iii) inclusion of studies that have not been subjected to peer-review process. COVID-19 pandemic has led to many papers’ fast track publication. This has been in part inevitable due to the urgent need for data. However, through years of research we have gained experience and understood that even peer-review process may not be enough to guarantee the quality of a published study, yet it is the best tool we currently possess. Thus, while not peer reviewed studies are obviously useful, they should be interpreted with caution. Interestingly, Potere et al. [68] performed two different analyses including peer-reviewed and not-peer reviewed articles in order to assess CI incidence among hospitalised patients with COVID-19. In the first case he reported an incidence of 15%, while in the second case an incidence of 5% (Table 1); (iv) all 73 included articles were written in English language. However, primary research papers written in Chinese, were included in some meta-analyses, rendering the reproduction of their results difficult [56]. This was perhaps unavoidable given that the vast majority of data, at least primarily, came from China, specifically Wuhan hospitals; (v) the definition of CI varied across included studies. Some meta-analyses included studies that based their definition strictly on high-sensitivity troponin I, while others included studies with different definitions of CI (e.g., based on non-high-sensitivity troponin, more than one cardiac biomarker, echocardiography etc.) (Table 1); (vi) CI is based on observations and measurements mainly upon admission, but this is not totally clear in some studies; (vii) Depending on the study, CI was expressed as a continuous (troponin level) or dichotomous (based on troponin cutoffs) variable; (viii) different statistical indices have been used to describe CI impact on COVID-19 prognosis. OR used across studies has been mainly an unadjusted index, while only a few studies used adjusted HR for possible confounders to quantify CI and COVID-19 association [60, 65, 66, 77].

CI is a multifactorial phenomenon in COVID-19 infection. As reported above many different mechanisms are implicated, most frequently not related to atherosclerosis [7]. This observation led the American College of Cardiology to recommend troponin not to be measured as a routine in all patients with COVID-19, as in most cases high values would falsely lead to acute coronary syndrome work-up. Interestingly, among 73 meta-analyses identified on this topic [1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81], the terms ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) or non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) were never encountered. What seems more reasonable is the view of Chapman et al. [7]. Although they recognize the potentially problematic use of troponin in patients with COVID-19, they cannot disregard its important prognostic value [7]. Physicians should be taught to better interpret laboratory tests, rather than abstain from ordering them [7]. Based on the above and according to our experience in our Reference Center, an initial assessment of troponin level and CI at least once upon admission may be reasonable in most patients with COVID-19. Future studies may shed light on different diagnostic approaches in patients with COVID-19. Moreover, troponin thresholds for STEMI or NSTEMI diagnosis may not be the same in patients with or without COVID-19.

The first meta-analysis on CI and COVID-19 was published in March 2020 by Li et al. [54], about 3 months after the onset of the pandemic in China. The present systematic review conducted a systematic literature search until May 2022 and identified 73 meta-analyses regarding the association of CI and COVID-19. This could be translated into 73 meta-analyses within 26 months or nearly 1 meta-analysis every ten days! Surprisingly, after performing systematic literature search to identify meta-analyses on the association of venous thromboembolism and COVID-19 (maybe the most popular COVID-19 related topic—at least before the distribution of vaccines), only 77 articles were retrieved (Fig. 3). After considering this comparison, the interest and the potential of authors in performing meta-analyses on CI and COVID-19 becomes even more impressive.

Fig. 3.

Comparison of results retrieved after PubMed search for COVID-19 and cardiac injury or COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism. Search algorithms: COVID-19 and cardiac injury: (“coronavirus 2019” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus disease 2019”) AND (troponin OR “cardiac injury” OR “myocardial injury”) AND (“meta-analysis” OR meta analysis); COVID-19 and venous thromboembolism: (“coronavirus 2019” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus disease 2019”) AND (“deep vein” OR “pulmonary embolism” OR “venous thromboembolism”) AND (“meta-analysis” OR meta analysis).

5. Conclusions

Overcoming the important methodological inconsistencies, the main conclusion of all meta-analyses is that CI is not rare and is indisputably associated with worse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Multiple pathophysiological mechanisms are implicated, and more careful diagnostic approach of elevated troponin level should be enhanced. The aforementioned chaotic heterogeneity and diversity of studies could be interpreted as making these observations even more robust, as different studies, different methodologies and different authors reach similar conclusions. CI incidence and impact on COVID-19 prognosis may have been one of the most meta-analysed topics of our days.

Author Contributions

KGK designed the research study; KGK, IPT and AK performed the systematic review literature search; IGK, NS, IAK and EF participated in the interpretation of data; IGK, IPT, NS, IAK and EF participated in the design of figures; KGK drafted the first version of the manuscript; IGK and AK substantively revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who helped us during the writing of this manuscript. We would also like to kindly thank all the peer reviewers for their opinions and suggestions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
[1]
Gu Z, Zhang C, Kong L, Shen L, Li Z, Ge H, et al. Incidence of myocardial injury in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pooled analysis of 7,679 patients from 53 studies. Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. 2020; 10: 667–677.
[2]
Task Force for the management of COVID-19 of the European Society of Cardiology. European Society of Cardiology guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: part 1-epidemiology, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 1033–1058.
[3]
Gluckman TJ, Bhave NM, Allen LA, Chung EH, Spatz ES, Ammirati E, et al. 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19 in Adults: Myocarditis and other Myocardial Involvement, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection, and Return to Play: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 79: 1717–1756.
[4]
Huang D, Lian X, Song F, Ma H, Lian Z, Liang Y, et al. Clinical features of severe patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Translational Medicine. 2020; 8: 576–576.
[5]
Shoar S, Hosseini F, Naderan M, Mehta JL. Meta-analysis of Cardiovascular Events and Related Biomarkers Comparing Survivors Versus Non-survivors in Patients with COVID-19. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2020; 135: 50–61.
[6]
Cereda A, Allievi L, Palmisano A, Tumminello G, Barbieri L, Mangieri A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on coronary calcifications in COVID-19. Emergency Radiology. 2022; 29: 631–643.
[7]
Chapman AR, Bularga A, Mills NL. High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin Can Be an Ally in the Fight Against COVID-19. Circulation. 2020; 141: 1733–1735.
[8]
Januzzi JL. Troponin and BNP Use in COVID-19. 2020. Available at: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2020/03/18/15/25/troponin-and-bnp-use-in-covid19 (Accessed: 23 November 2022).
[9]
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700–b2700.
[10]
Wu T, Zuo Z, Kang S, Jiang L, Luo X, Xia Z, et al. Multi-organ Dysfunction in Patients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Aging and Disease. 2020; 11: 874–894.
[11]
Moutchia J, Pokharel P, Kerri A, McGaw K, Uchai S, Nji M, et al. Clinical laboratory parameters associated with severe or critical novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15: e0239802.
[12]
Luo L, Fu M, Li Y, Hu S, Luo J, Chen Z, et al. The potential association between common comorbidities and severity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019: a pooled analysis. Clinical Cardiology. 2020; 43: 1478–1493.
[13]
Vakili K, Fathi M, Pezeshgi A, Mohamadkhani A, Hajiesmaeili M, Rezaei-Tavirani M, et al. Critical complications of COVID-19: a descriptive meta-analysis study. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020; 21: 433–442.
[14]
Walker C, Deb S, Ling H, Wang Z. Assessing the Elevation of Cardiac Biomarkers and the Severity of COVID-19 Infection: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2020; 23: 396–405.
[15]
Zeng L, Wang S, Cai J, Sun S, Wang S, Li J, et al. Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 with cardiac injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology and Infection. 2020; 148: e266.
[16]
Prasitlumkum N, Chokesuwattanaskul R, Thongprayoon C, Bathini T, Vallabhajosyula S, Cheungpasitporn W. Incidence of Myocardial Injury in COVID-19-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diseases. 2020; 8: 40.
[17]
Mesas AE, Cavero-Redondo I, Alvarez-Bueno C, Sarria Cabrera MA, Maffei de Andrade S, Sequi-Dominguez I, et al. Predictors of in-hospital COVID-19 mortality: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis exploring differences by age, sex and health conditions. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15: e0241742.
[18]
Bansal A, Kumar A, Patel D, Puri R, Kalra A, Kapadia SR, et al. Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes in Patients With and Without Cardiac Injury and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19). The American Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 141: 140–146.
[19]
Vakhshoori M, Heidarpour M, Shafie D, Taheri M, Rezaei N, Sarrafzadegan N. Acute Cardiac Injury in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2020; 23: 801–812.
[20]
Huang Z, Huang P, Du B, Kong L, Zhang W, Zhang Y, et al. Prevalence and clinical outcomes of cardiac injury in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2021; 31: 2–13.
[21]
Malik P, Patel U, Patel NH, Somi S, Singh J. Elevated cardiac troponin I as a predictor of outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalizations: a meta-analysis. Le Infezioni in Medicina. 2020; 28: 500–506.
[22]
Hessami A, Shamshirian A, Heydari K, Pourali F, Alizadeh-Navaei R, Moosazadeh M, et al. Cardiovascular diseases burden in COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021; 46: 382–391.
[23]
Zhao B, Liu W, Lei S, Zhou B, Yang X, Huang T, et al. Prevalence and prognostic value of elevated troponins in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Intensive Care. 2020; 8: 88.
[24]
Fu L, Liu X, Su Y, Ma J, Hong K. Prevalence and impact of cardiac injury on COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Cardiology. 2021; 44: 276–283.
[25]
Hu J, Wang Y. The Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors of Severe COVID-19. Gerontology. 2021; 67: 255–266.
[26]
Zhang T, Huang W, Guan W, Hong Z, Gao J, Gao G, et al. Risk factors and predictors associated with the severity of COVID-19 in China: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2020; 12: 7429–7441.
[27]
Mudatsir M, Fajar JK, Wulandari L, Soegiarto G, Ilmawan M, Purnamasari Y, et al. Predictors of COVID-19 severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research. 2020; 9: 1107.
[28]
Zhong Z, Li H, Zhu J, Ji P, Li B, Pang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 2,459 severe or critically ill COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis. Medicine. 2021; 100: e23781.
[29]
Chaudhary R, Garg J, Houghton DE, Murad MH, Kondur A, Chaudhary R, et al. Thromboinflammatory Biomarkers in COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 17,052 Patients. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality and Outcomes. 2021; 5: 388–402.
[30]
Koeppen M, Rosenberger P, Magunia H. COVID-19 Related Cardiovascular Comorbidities and Complications in Critically Ill Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Medicine Insights: Circulatory, Respiratory and Pulmonary Medicine. 2021; 15: 1179548421992327.
[31]
Sahranavard M, Akhavan Rezayat A, Zamiri Bidary M, Omranzadeh A, Rohani F, Hamidi Farahani R, et al. Cardiac Complications in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2021; 24: 152–163.
[32]
Sheth A, Modi M, Dawson D, Dominic P. Prognostic value of cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19 infection. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11: 4930.
[33]
Wibowo A, Pranata R, Akbar MR, Purnomowati A, Martha JW. Prognostic performance of troponin in COVID-19: a diagnostic meta-analysis and meta-regression. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2021; 105: 312–318.
[34]
Qiang Z, Wang B, Garrett BC, Rainey RP, Superko HR. Coronavirus disease 2019: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis on cardiovascular biomarkers. Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2021; 36: 367–373.
[35]
Wungu CDK, Khaerunnisa S, Putri EAC, Hidayati HB, Qurnianingsih E, Lukitasari L, et al. Meta-analysis of cardiac markers for predictive factors on severity and mortality of COVID-19. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2021; 105: 551–559.
[36]
Dalia T, Lahan S, Ranka S, Acharya P, Gautam A, Goyal A, et al. Impact of congestive heart failure and role of cardiac biomarkers in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Heart Journal. 2021; 73: 91–98.
[37]
Tiruneh SA, Tesema ZT, Azanaw MM, Angaw DA. The effect of age on the incidence of COVID-19 complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 2021; 10: 80.
[38]
Zhao Y, Zhao L, Yang X, Wang P. Cardiovascular complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021; 22: 159–165.
[39]
Alzahrani SH, Al-Rabia MW. Cardiac Injury Biomarkers and the Risk of Death in Patients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiology Research and Practice. 2021; 2021: 9363569.
[40]
Toloui A, Moshrefiaraghi D, Madani Neishaboori A, Yousefifard M, Haji Aghajani M. Cardiac Complications and Pertaining Mortality Rate in COVID-19 Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2021; 9: e18.
[41]
Cheng MP, Cau A, Lee TC, Brodie D, Slutsky A, Marshall J, et al. Acute Cardiac Injury in Coronavirus Disease 2019 and other Viral Infections—a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Critical Care Medicine. 2021; 49: 1558–1566.
[42]
Patel U, Malik P, Mehta D, Rajput P, Shrivastava M, Naveed M, et al. Outcomes of COVID-19 Complications and their Possibilities as Potential Triggers of Stroke. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2021; 30: 105805.
[43]
Wu Y, Li H, Zhang Z, Liang W, Zhang T, Tong Z, et al. Risk factors for mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients during the early outbreak of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2021; 10: 5069–5083.
[44]
Long J, Luo Y, Wei Y, Xie C, Yuan J. The effect of cardiovascular disease and acute cardiac injury on fatal COVID-19: a meta-analysis. the American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021; 48: 128–139.
[45]
Zinellu A, Sotgia S, Fois AG, Mangoni AA. Serum CK-MB, COVID-19 severity and mortality: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. Advances in Medical Sciences. 2021; 66: 304–314.
[46]
Katzenschlager S, Zimmer AJ, Gottschalk C, Grafeneder J, Schmitz S, Kraker S, et al. Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome? PLoS ONE. 2021; 16: e0255154.
[47]
Abate SM, Mantefardo B, Nega S, Chekole YA, Basu B, Ali SA, et al. Global burden of acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2021; 68: 102594.
[48]
Zhu Z, Wang M, Lin W, Cai Q, Zhang L, Chen D, et al. Cardiac biomarkers, cardiac injury, and comorbidities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19): a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Immunity, Inflammation and Disease. 2021; 9: 1071–1100.
[49]
An W, Kang J, Wang Q, Kim T. Cardiac biomarkers and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2021; 14: 1191–1197.
[50]
Ma C, Tu D, Gu J, Xu Q, Hou P, Wu H, et al. The Predictive Value of Myoglobin for COVID-19-Related Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021; 8: 757799.
[51]
Changal K, Veria S, Mack S, Paternite D, Sheikh SA, Patel M, et al. Myocardial injury in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2021; 21: 626.
[52]
Ogungbe O, Kumbe B, Fadodun OA, Latha T, Meyer D, Asala AF, et al. Subclinical myocardial injury, coagulopathy, and inflammation in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of 41,013 hospitalized patients. IJC Heart and Vasculature. 2022; 40: 100950.
[53]
Nasir Kansestani A, Zare ME, Zhang J. Prognostic Accuracy of Cardiovascular Disease Biomarkers in Patients with COVID-19: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Tehran Heart Center. 2021; 16: 1–14.
[54]
Li B, Yang J, Zhao F, Zhi L, Wang X, Liu L, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clinical Research in Cardiology. 2020; 109: 531–538.
[55]
Lippi G, Lavie CJ, Sanchis-Gomar F. Cardiac troponin I in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Evidence from a meta-analysis. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020; 63: 390–391.
[56]
Li J, Han T, Woodward M, Anderson CS, Zhou H, Chen Y, et al. The impact of 2019 novel coronavirus on heart injury: a Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020; 63: 518–524.
[57]
Santoso A, Pranata R, Wibowo A, Al-Farabi MJ, Huang I, Antariksa B. Cardiac injury is associated with mortality and critically ill pneumonia in COVID-19: a meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021; 44: 352–357.
[58]
Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, Zhao J, Liu H, Peng J, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Infection. 2020; 81: e16–e25.
[59]
Shao MJ, Shang LX, Luo JY, Shi J, Zhao Y, Li XM, et al. Myocardial injury is associated with higher mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology. 2020; 17: 224–228.
[60]
Vrsalovic M, Vrsalovic Presecki A. Cardiac troponins predict mortality in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis of adjusted risk estimates. Journal of Infection. 2020; 81: e99–e100.
[61]
Tian W, Jiang W, Yao J, Nicholson CJ, Li RH, Sigurslid HH, et al. Predictors of mortality in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Medical Virology. 2020; 92: 1875–1883.
[62]
Li X, Guan B, Su T, Liu W, Chen M, Bin Waleed K, et al. Impact of cardiovascular disease and cardiac injury on in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2020; 106: 1142–1147.
[63]
Aikawa T, Takagi H, Ishikawa K, Kuno T. Myocardial injury characterized by elevated cardiac troponin and in‐hospital mortality of COVID‐19: an insight from a meta‐analysis. Journal of Medical Virology. 2021; 93: 51–55.
[64]
Toraih EA, Elshazli RM, Hussein MH, Elgaml A, Amin M, El‐Mowafy M, et al. Association of cardiac biomarkers and comorbidities with increased mortality, severity, and cardiac injury in COVID‐19 patients: a meta‐regression and decision tree analysis. Journal of Medical Virology. 2020; 92: 2473–2488.
[65]
Kollias A, Kyriakoulis KG, Destounis A, Stergiou GS, Syrigos K. Cardiac injury and prognosis in COVID-19: Methodological considerations and updated meta-analysis. Journal of Infection. 2020; 81: e181–e182.
[66]
Vrsalovic M, Presecki AV. Cardiac injury and mortality in COVID-19: a reappraisal. Journal of Infection. 2020; 81: e35–e36.
[67]
Parohan M, Yaghoubi S, Seraji A. Cardiac injury is associated with severe outcome and death in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2020; 9: 665–677.
[68]
Potere N, Valeriani E, Candeloro M, Tana M, Porreca E, Abbate A, et al. Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care. 2020; 24: 389.
[69]
Liu H, Gai S, Wang X, Zeng J, Sun C, Zhao Y, et al. Single-cell analysis of SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 and spike protein priming expression of proteases in the human heart. Cardiovascular Research. 2020; 116: 1733–1741.
[70]
Momtazmanesh S, Shobeiri P, Hanaei S, Mahmoud-Elsayed H, Dalvi B, Malakan Rad E. Cardiovascular disease in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10,898 patients and proposal of a triage risk stratification tool. The Egyptian Heart Journal. 2020; 72: 41.
[71]
De Lorenzo A, Kasal DA, Tura BR, Lamas CC, Rey HC. Acute cardiac injury in patients with COVID-19. American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease. 2020; 10: 28–33.
[72]
Zhao J, Li X, Gao Y, Huang W. Risk factors for the exacerbation of patients with 2019 Novel Coronavirus: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020; 17: 1744–1750.
[73]
Li X, Pan X, Li Y, An N, Xing Y, Yang F, et al. Cardiac injury associated with severe disease or ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Critical Care. 2020; 24: 468.
[74]
Zuin M, Rigatelli G, Zuliani G, Bilato C, Zonzin P, Roncon L. Incidence and mortality risk in coronavirus disease 2019 patients complicated by acute cardiac injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020; 21: 759–764.
[75]
Ghahramani S, Tabrizi R, Lankarani KB, Kashani SMA, Rezaei S, Zeidi N, et al. Laboratory features of severe vs. non-severe COVID-19 patients in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Medical Research. 2020; 25: 30.
[76]
Khinda J, Janjua NZ, Cheng S, van den Heuvel ER, Bhatti P, Darvishian M. Association between markers of immune response at hospital admission and COVID‐19 disease severity and mortality: a meta‐analysis and meta‐regression. Journal of Medical Virology. 2021; 93: 1078–1098.
[77]
Sanz-Sánchez J, Vrachatis DA, Reimers B, Deftereos SG, Kallikourdis M, Vicenzi M, et al. Impact of myocardial injury on mortality in patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Hellenic Journal of Cardiology. 2021; 62: 253–255.
[78]
Zou F, Qian Z, Wang Y, Zhao Y, Bai J. Cardiac Injury and COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. CJC Open. 2020; 2: 386–394.
[79]
Danwang C, Endomba FT, Nkeck JR, Wouna DLA, Robert A, Noubiap JJ. A meta-analysis of potential biomarkers associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Biomarker Research. 2020; 8: 37.
[80]
Katzenschlager S, Zimmer AJ, Gottschalk C, Grafeneder J, Seitel A, Maier-Hein L, et al. Can we predict the severe course of COVID-19 - a systematic review and meta-analysis of indicators of clinical outcome? medRxiv. 2020. (preprint)
[81]
Dawson D, Dominic P, Sheth A, Modi M. Prognostic value of Cardiac Biomarkers in COVID-19 Infection: A Meta-analysis. Research Square. 2020. (preprint)
[82]
Henry BM, Benoit SW, de Oliveira MHS, Hsieh WC, Benoit J, Ballout RA, et al. Laboratory abnormalities in children with mild and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pooled analysis and review. Clinical Biochemistry. 2020; 81: 1–8.
[83]
Zhao Y, Patel J, Huang Y, Yin L, Tang L. Cardiac markers of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) in COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021; 49: 62–70.
[84]
Williams V, Dash N, Suthar R, Mohandoss V, Jaiswal N, Kavitha TK, et al. Clinicolaboratory Profile, Treatment, Intensive Care Needs, and Outcome of Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Associated with SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Intensive Care. 2022; 11: 1–12.
[85]
Pranata R, Huang I, Lukito AA, Raharjo SB. Elevated N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide is associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2020; 96: 387–391.
Share
Back to top
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. Print ISSN 1530-6550 Electronic ISSN 2153-8174
Disclaimer
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept