COMMENTARY

COVID and the Athlete's Heart

; Manesh R. Patel, MD

Disclosures

March 25, 2021

5

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I'm Bob Harrington from Stanford University and theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. Today I want to talk about myocardial inflammation/myocarditis in athletes. What should we be worried about in athletes who have had COVID-19 infection? What are some of the screening tools we can use to guide our recommendations? What conversations do we need to have with patients and their families? What do the latest data tell us about the incidence? And the important question all athletes want answered: When can they get back to participating in the sport they love and excel in?

I'm privileged today to discuss this with my good friend and colleague, Dr Manesh Patel from Duke University. Manesh is currently the Richard Sean Stack Distinguished Professor at Duke. He is chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Medicine at Duke and the co-director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, it's a pleasure to see you on the screen. I can't think of a better person to help us sort out this issue, given your background in clinical cardiology and cardiac MRI.

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Thanks, Bob. When you said "no better person," I'm glad there are better athletes but I certainly am trained in cardiology and MRI, so I can help with that.

Harrington: Manesh, in some ways this has been a remarkable year in terms of knowledge accrual on COVID-19, but in other ways it's been a tedious year. When COVID first came onto the scene last late winter/early spring, one of the things many of us in cardiology were struck by were the early case reports on the cardiac involvement of patients who had COVID-19. I'm not talking about the myocardial infarctions or strokes that were observed; that's for another conversation on thrombotic complications. I'm talking about the inflammatory complications, particularly myocarditis, which was something that raised a lot of antennas when it first appeared. What were your initial thoughts when you saw those reports?

Patel: We all realized quickly that COVID-19 was more than a respiratory infection and that people were coming in to the hospital and eventually having cardiovascular collapse. We also recognized that there were many mechanisms through which, at least biologically, something that binds to an ACE2 receptor to vascular endothelium could affect the heart. The first MRI study, from Germany, included 100 patients who had left the hospital; 78% of them had abnormalities on MRI. I looked very carefully at that study and thought, clearly some people have myocardial involvement. But when I looked at the images and other information, I couldn't tell whether it was myocardial involvement from COVID or something they had because they were in their 60s and had previously undiagnosed cardiovascular disease. Some of those findings are very sensitive. Immediately we were concerned about myocardial involvement with COVID and also about how we could sort this out to help inform our colleagues and our patients.

Harrington: It's a classic issue in imaging — what happens when you pick up abnormalities you didn't anticipate picking up, and how you deal with that information.

Patel: It's a constant in all of medicine and certainly in cardiology. I'll call it screening for evaluation of some involvement. With COVID-19, we understood that there were symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Certainly that study included a lot of symptomatic individuals leaving the hospital. But as we get into the athletes, we'll start talking about how you evaluate people who may be very high functioning. Should you be screening them? This is obviously a controversial topic.

Harrington: I am always telling the residents and fellows, do not get a test unless you know what you're going to do with the results of that test, because of this issue of dealing with findings that may surprise you. As you pointed out, the German study included a broad spectrum of patients. But then a report appeared from Ohio State University. This cardiac MR study found a high incidence of abnormal MRI findings in a group of competitive collegiate athletes. Now, these were nonconsecutive cases, not great controls, with a lot of the caveats that have to be applied. But it raised a lot of questions because of the unique nature of competitive athletics, which involve strenuous exercise and a return to that exercise at some point. Let's deconstruct that study, Manesh. What did you think when you saw it? Why would we care so much about myocarditis in athletes?

Patel: As with much of our understanding of COVID, this came from a confluence of science, a bit of the economics of how universities and programs must work, and then making sure we protect our young athletes who may not always have protection. I have to give tremendous credit to the investigators at Ohio State who published this research letter in JAMA Cardiology; they rapidly agreed to screen their athletes, evaluated those with COVID, and performed a cardiac MRI study that raised awareness of these abnormalities in athletes.

In fact, 26 COVID-positive athletes across multiple different sports had cardiac MRI. They used the Lake Louise Criteria, which look at T2 and T1 weighted MR imaging. For those at home, this is related to the water content of the cells. When you get inflammation in the cells of the myocardium, it can change the water content of the cells. And they looked at late gadolinium enhancement; gadolinium contrast is given to reveal cellular membrane damage or fibrosis. With these measures, they identified findings consistent with myocarditis in four of those 26 individuals.

That was a higher rate than one would have expected in a COVID-positive population, remembering that these young athletes with COVID-19 may not have many symptoms. So that was important. And then, we confront the issue of getting them back to playing their sport. We know from autopsy studies and others that if an athlete has myocarditis, when sudden cardiac death risks exist or the athlete has symptoms, we usually keep them out of athletics for 3 months or so.

Harrington: Let's talk about that. For the primary care doc who is doing a lot of the screening for sports teams at the collegiate and high school levels, maybe even younger, why care about myocarditis, specifically in athletes? What's the risk?

Patel: Our understanding is that as the myocardium and the cells themselves get inflamed, ventricular function may change. So even though the person is actively exercising, sympathetic tone goes up and down in these young athletes and they may experience an arrhythmogenic effect. They may have a very scary sudden cardiac event that can lead to cardiac arrest. That's what we fear most in athletic evaluations: Is there a substrate, is there an underlying mechanism by which someone could have an event? Before COVID, when we looked at series of athletes who had certain cardiac events, between 5% and more than 20% of them may have had myocarditis underlying the event. That's led to broad return-to-play recommendations in athletics. However, one thing we've learned with COVID, and we're learning with athletic evaluations, is that there's a lot of opportunity. Partnering with some of the leaders in the field, we have an opportunity to better define how we make these shared decisions, both with collegiate and professional athletes. Certainly, parents of high school and middle school kids are worried about this, and we're all concerned about our patients and the weekend warriors we deal with.

Harrington: The American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Statement on myocarditis says that you should avoid strenuous exercise for at least 3-6 months. That may be okay for you and me, Manesh. We'll have to skip the Peloton for weeks to months, but we're talking about young people who love their sports and who are important to their teams. So you want to be sure you get this one right.

Patel: It has been such a pleasure to work with Aaron Baggish at Harvard, and Jon Drezner and Kim Harmon from the University of Washington. They and several team physicians have highlighted that restricting participation doesn't only physically affect the athletes who don't get to play; there's a huge psychological effect on people who've trained and exercised their whole lives. There is also deconditioning. We're recognizing that things like postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) may develop as these athletes, who have an autonomic system that's pretty revved up, stop working out and exercising. We're now seeing post-COVID POTS. My sense is, it's a significant decision to keep an athlete out of sports, so we really want to be as evidence based as possible.

Harrington: That is well summarized; you definitely want to get this one right. Part of getting it right goes back to that "incidental observation." Several months after the Ohio State report — and I agree with you, kudos to them for putting that out there — we started to see autopsy data appearing in the literature, including a terrific pooled autopsy study that said, wait a minute; when you actually study this in a nonselected population, because these are people who happen to have autopsies after COVID-19, the incidence of myocarditis by pathologic examination was actually really low, nowhere near what the imaging might have suggested.

Patel: As is often the case, first you get case reports, but as you get larger targeted studies, you get closer to the true incidence. The German study found some abnormalities on MRI in 78% of the individuals — very worrisome. And collegiate athletes, who you would assume had no other baseline myocardial involvement because they were collegiate athletes, it was 4 out of 26 (15%) with cardiac MR abnormalities. Then you look at the autopsy series, and you quickly get to less than 5% in broader groups and now you're looking at the gold standard. Some of it is about the test you're looking at, some is about the group of patients you're looking at, and some is about what you think that incidence is. What we know is that obviously something is occurring. The exact rate of what is occurring seems to be lower than those initial studies indicated, but questions have focused on the consequences. What can we do to clear people and make sure they're okay to participate in some of these sports? Because we want to be as safe as possible.

  • 5

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE
Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.

processing....