Evidence Hub

Long-term cardiovascular outcomes in COVID-19 survivors among non-vaccinated population: A retrospective cohort study from the TriNetX US collaborative networks

Weijie Wang, Chi-Yen Wang, Shiow-Ing Wang, J. Wei

EClinicalMedicine, 2022

4,131,717 participants · 298 citations

Abstract

Summary Background The long-term cardiovascular outcomes in COVID-19 survivors remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term cardiovascular outcomes in COVID-19 survivors. Methods This study used the data from the US Collaborative Network in TriNetX. From a cohort of more than 42 million records between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2022, a total of 4,131,717 participants who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing were recruited. Study population then divided into two groups based on COVID-19 test results. To avoid reverse causality, the follow-up initiated 30 days after the test, and continued until 12 months. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of the incidental cardiovascular outcomes were calculated between propensity score–matched patients with versus without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Subgroup analyses on sex, and age group were also conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different network, or stratified by hospitalization to explore the difference of geography and severity of COVID-19 infection. Findings The COVID-19 survivors were associated with increased risks of cerebrovascular diseases, such as stroke (HR [95% CI] = 1.618 [1.545-1.694]), arrhythmia related disorders, such as atrial fibrillation (HR [95% CI] = 2.407 [2.296-2.523]), inflammatory heart disease, such as myocarditis (HR [95% CI] =4.406 [2.890-6.716]), ischemic heart disease(IHD), like ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR [95% CI] = 2.811 [2.477-3.190]), other…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,131,717 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free