ArticleHeliyon2024
Changes in subclinical cardiac abnormalities 1 Year after recovering from COVID-19 in patients without clinical cardiac findings.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Bridging the clinical, molecular and genetic perspectives on myocarditis in post-COVID-19 era".International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
- Immune Profile and MRI-Detected Cardiac Fibrosis and Edema in Hypertensive and Non-Hypertensive Patients with COVID-19.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Cardiac remodeling and inflammation detected by magnetic resonance imaging in COVID-19 survivors.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the subclinical cardiac involvement in COVID-19 patients without clinical cardiac evidence using cardiac MR imaging. Material and methods: Participants recovered from COVID-19 without cardiac symptoms and no cardiovascular medical history were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. They underwent baseline cardiac MR and follow-up cardiac MR > 300 days after discharge (n = 20). The study also included healthy controls (n = 20). Extracellular volume fraction (ECV), native T1, and 2D strain data were assessed and compared. Results: The ECV values of participants at baseline [30.0% (28.3%-32.5%)] and at follow-up [31.0% (28.0%-32.8%)] were increased compared to the healthy control group [27.0% (25.3%-28.0%)] (both p < 0.001). However, the ECV increase from baseline cardiac MR to follow-up cardiac MR was not significant (p = 0.378). There was a statistically significant difference in global native T1 between baseline [1140 (1108.3-1192.0) ms] and follow-up [1176.0 (1113.0-1206.3) ms] (p = 0.016). However, no native T1 difference was found between the healthy controls [1160.7 (1119.6-1195.4) ms] and the baseline (p = 0.394) or follow-up group (p = 0.168). The global T2 was 41(40-42) ms at follow-up which was within the normal range. In addition, We found a recovery in 2D GLS among COVID-19 participants between baseline and follow-up [-12.4(-11.7 to -14.3)% vs. -17.2(-16.2 to -18.3)%; p<0.001]. Conclusion: Using cardiac MR myocardial tissue and strain imaging parameters, 35% of people without cardiac symptoms or clinical evidence of myocardial injury still had subclinical myocardial tissue characteristic abnormalities at 300 days, but 2D GLS had recovered.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.