ObjectiveTo describe the similarities and differences in the evaluation and treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at hospitals in the US.Study designWe conducted a cross-sectional survey from June 16 to July 16, 2020, of US children's hospitals regarding protocols for management of patients with MIS-C. Elements included characteristics of the hospital, clinical definition of MIS-C, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. We summarized key findings and compared results from centers in which >5 patients had been treated vs those in which ≤5 patients had been treated.ResultsIn all, 40 centers of varying size and experience with MIS-C participated in this protocol survey. Overall, 21 of 40 centers required only 1 day of fever for MIS-C to be considered. In the evaluation of patients, there was often a tiered approach. Intravenous immunoglobulin was the most widely recommended medication to treat MIS-C (98% of centers). Corticosteroids were listed in 93% of protocols primarily for moderate or severe cases. Aspirin was commonly recommended for mild cases, whereas heparin or low molecular weight heparin were to be used primarily in severe cases. In severe cases, anakinra and vasopressors frequently were recommended; 39 of 40 centers recommended follow-up with cardiology. There were similar findings between centers in which >5 patients vs ≤5 patients had been managed. Supplemental materials containing hospital protocols are provided.ConclusionsThere are many similarities yet key differences between hospital protocols for MIS-C. These findings can help healthcare providers learn from others regarding options for managing MIS-C. To describe the similarities and differences in the evaluation and treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at hospitals in the US. We conducted a cross-sectional survey from June 16 to July 16, 2020, of US children's hospitals regarding protocols for management of patients with MIS-C. Elements included characteristics of the hospital, clinical definition of MIS-C, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up. We summarized key findings and compared results from centers in which >5 patients had been treated vs those in which ≤5 patients had been treated. In all, 40 centers of varying size and experience with MIS-C participated in this protocol survey. Overall, 21 of 40 centers required only 1 day of fever for MIS-C to be considered. In the evaluation of patients, there was often a tiered approach. Intravenous immunoglobulin was the most widely recommended medication to treat MIS-C (98% of centers). Corticosteroids were listed in 93% of protocols primarily for moderate or severe cases. Aspirin was commonly recommended for mild cases, whereas heparin or low molecular weight heparin were to be used primarily in severe cases. In severe cases, anakinra and vasopressors frequently were recommended; 39 of 40 centers recommended follow-up with cardiology. There were similar findings between centers in which >5 patients vs ≤5 patients had been managed. Supplemental materials containing hospital protocols are provided. There are many similarities yet key differences between hospital protocols for MIS-C. These findings can help healthcare providers learn from others regarding options for managing MIS-C.
Background Although rare, classic viral myocarditis in the pediatric population is a disease that carries significant morbidity and mortality. Since 2020, myocarditis has been a common component of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In 2021, myocarditis related to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was recognized as a rare adverse event. This study aims to compare classic, MIS-C, and COVID-19 vaccine-related myocarditis with regard to clinical presentation, course, and outcomes. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, we compared patients aged <21 years hospitalized at our institution with classic viral myocarditis from 2015 to 2019, MIS-C myocarditis from March 2020 to February 2021, and vaccine-related myocarditis from May 2021 to June 2021. Of 201 total participants, 43 patients had classic myocarditis, 149 had MIS-C myocarditis, and 9 had vaccine-related myocarditis. At presentation, ejection fraction was lowest for those with classic myocarditis, with ejection fraction <55% present in 58% of patients. Nearly all patients with MIS-C myocarditis (n=139, 93%) and all patients with vaccine-related myocarditis (n=9, 100%) had normal left ventricular ejection fraction at the time of discharge compared with 70% (n=30) of the classic myocarditis group (P<0.001). At 3 months after discharge, of the 21 children discharged with depressed ejection fraction, none of the 10 children with MIS-C myocarditis had residual dysfunction compared with 3 of the 11 (27%) patients in the classic myocarditis group. Conclusions Compared with classic myocarditis, those with MIS-C myocarditis had better clinical outcomes, including rapid recovery of cardiac function. Patients with vaccine-related myocarditis had prompt resolution of symptoms and improvement of cardiac function.
To determine whether racial/ethnic differences exist for the treatment of Marfan syndrome aortopathy. The 2014 Pediatric Heart Network randomised trial of losartan versus atenolol in Marfan syndrome paediatric and young adult patients showed no treatment differences in the rate of aortic root growth over 3 years; however, they did not examine racial/ethnic differences, and recent data suggest that angiotensin receptor blockers may have different pharmacologic effects in different racial/ethnic populations.We performed a secondary analysis of public-use data from the Pediatric Heart Network randomised trial comparing the differences by race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic patients) amongst the treatment groups for the primary outcome of rate of aortic root enlargement by z score and secondary outcome of rate of change of absolute diameter of aortic root, z score and absolute diameter of ascending aorta, and blood pressure changes.For aortic root enlargement by z score amongst non-Hispanic White patients, patients on losartan exhibited an annual z score change of -0.090 ± 0.016, compared to -0.146 ± 0.015 for those on atenolol (p = 0.01), favouring atenolol. For Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients, there was no difference in primary or secondary outcomes between treatment groups.Non-Hispanic White patients had a small, but statistically significantly greater decrease in aortic root z score favouring atenolol over losartan. There were no significant differences amongst Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black patients, which may be due to relatively small size numbers. These findings may have important implications for medication selection by race/ethnicity in Marfan syndrome patients, which has not previously been evaluated in studies.
Summary Short sleep has been associated with cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of short‐term sleep restriction on lipid profiles and resting blood pressure factors in young, normal‐weight individuals (14 men, 13 women). Participants were randomized to five nights of either habitual (9 h) or short (4 h) sleep in a cross‐over design separated by a 3‐week washout period. There was no sleep × day interaction on lipid profile and blood pressure. Short‐term sleep restriction does not alter lipid profiles and resting blood pressure in healthy, normal‐weight individuals. The association between short sleep and increased cardiovascular risk reported in the epidemiological literature may be the result of long‐term sleep restriction and poor lifestyle choices.
