COVID-19'dan iyileşme sonrası tedavi rejimlerine göre biventriküler miyokard geriliminin karşılaştırılması

Karaca Özer P., Ayduk Govdelı E., Altınkaynak M., Baykız D., Arıcı H., Çatma Y., ...More

CUKUROVA MEDICAL JOURNAL, vol.47, no.3, pp.1005-1014, 2022 (ESCI) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 47 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.17826/cumj.1092998
  • Journal Indexes: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Academic Search Premier, Directory of Open Access Journals, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.1005-1014
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes


Purpose: The effects of different COVID-19 therapeutic strategies on cardiac function are uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of different medical treatments on biventricular function in patients who had recovered from COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Speckle-tracking echocardiography was performed to examine the biventricular myocardial function of patients at follow-up visits after recovery from COVID-19. The patients were divided into two groups based on the medication they used during the active disease: favipiravir (FAV; n = 60) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ; n = 60). A comparison was made with risk factor–matched controls (n = 41). Results: A total of 161 patients were included in the study. The left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, end-diastolic diameter, and end-systolic diameter were higher in the HCQ and FAV groups compared to the controls, while the left ventricular ejection fraction was similar between all the groups. The right ventricular diameter was increased, and the systolic pulmonary artery pressure was higher in the HCQ and FAV groups compared to the controls. The left ventricular global longitudinal strain (-18±6.6 vs. -19.7±4.4 vs. -20.4±5, respectively), the right ventricular global longitudinal strain (-19.8±7.5 vs. -22.2±6 vs. -23.4±6.2, respectively), and the right ventricular free wall strain (-16.9±3.6 vs. -18.2±2.4 vs. -19.6±4.7, respectively) were worse in the HCQ group compared to the FAV and control groups. Conclusion: This study found echocardiographic evidence of subclinical cardiac involvement in both the HCQ and FAV groups compared to the controls. However, HCQ treatment was associated with an increased risk of biventricular subclinical systolic dysfunction in COVID-19 survivors compared with FAV treatment.