Assessment of cardiovascular & pulmonary pathobiology in vivo during acute COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mostly associated with pulmonary injury, but its association with cardiac and vascular pathobiology remains poorly understood (1-3). Patients with cardiac involvement are at a higher risk of mortality, with 8-28% of patients showing biochemical evidence of myocardial injury (4).

2-deoxy-2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography integrated with computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) can identify cellular inflammation in pulmonary, cardiac and vascular tissues, but prospective studies in COVID-19 remain limited (5-7). Whilst cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) (1-3) and chest computed tomography (CT) imaging in COVID-19 have been conducted (8) these have been limited to the recovery phase and restricted to a single modality. As such these studies were unable to differentiate ischaemic from non-ischaemic cardiac pathology. A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) with myocarditis and cardiac impairment as hallmarks of the presentation has been described (9). Whether a similar mechanism of cardiac and vascular injury occurs in the adults with acute COVID-19 remains unknown.

Using CMR, computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) (10) and 18F-FDG-PET/CT (5-7) imaging during acute COVID-19 infection, we investigated in vivo pathobiology of the myocardium, arterial vasculature and pulmonary parenchyma. We hypothesised that myocardial or pulmomary inflammation and injury could be described by CMR and 18F-FDG-PET/CT, the presence of vascular inflammation identified by 18F-FDG-PET/CT and the contribution by coronary artery disease shown by CTCA. We investigated the relationship between imagining findings and biomarkers, as well as any association between pulmonary and cardiac pathology.

METHODS

RESULTS

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

Twenty-six patients underwent CMR scanning. All scans were of adequate quality for volume and wall motion analysis. One scan was of insufficient quality for T1 mapping analysis, one insufficient quality for T2 analysis and one scan inadequate for LGE analysis. Myocarditis status was therefore available in 25 patients using the specific 2018 Lake Louise Criteria (14).

In the patient population the median LV EF was 51% [IQR 57-57] and RV EF 55% [48-50]. Median global native T1 was 1275ms [IQR 1250-1317], global ECV was 25% [24-28] and global T2 was 51ms [47-54]. Nine patients (35%, n=9/25) had LGE. Of these, two (22%) had subendocardial LGE, and eight (89%) mid-wall or epicardial LGE. Of these nine patients with LGE, seven (78%) also had evidence of active myocardial oedema by T2 value.

Nine (35%, n=9/25) patients had evidence of active myocarditis by the most specific 2018 Lake Louise criteria (Table 2, Figure 1). Six (57%, n=5/9) of these patients had evidence of LGE, with four in a myocarditis pattern (mid-wall), one subendocardial and one both. Thirteen patients (50%, n=13/25) had evidence of myocarditis by the sensitive criteria (Supplemental Table 4).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2:

Cardiac MRI results stratified by the specific 2018 Lake Louis II diagnosis of myocarditis, cardiac 18F-FDG-PET/CT evidence of myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration and presence of pulmonary inflammation or consolidation.

*Denominators differ for each modality as not all scans are performed/diagnostic on every patient

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Severe myocarditis with minimal lung injury.

There is mid-wall injury at the basal myocardium in the septum (white arrows) shown by CMR (a) native T1, (b) post contrast T1 and LGE (h, blue arrow). There was no increase in T2 values in this basal region (c), but there is gross increase in mid-ventricular septal T2 (d, red arrows) indicating oedema remote to prior myocardial fibrosis. There was minimal lung consolidation (e, red contours) or inflammation (f, blue contours). There is diffuse bi-ventricular 18F-FDG uptake (significantly higher than in the liver) (g). The patient had severe left and right ventricular impairment with elevated hsTrop (110 ng/L) and NT-proBNP (7140 pg/ml) but low CRP (10 mg/L).

Cardiac troponin concentrations were numerically higher in patients with myocarditis compared to those without (8.4 [IQR 4.0-55.3] vs 3.5 [2.5-5.5], p=0.07) (Supplemental Table 5). No differences in viral load (25 [IQR 20-28] vs 27[22-29], p=0.70), LV diastolic volume (55 ml/m2 [50-73] vs 55 [52-72], p=0.84) or LV ejection fraction (59% [55-52] vs 54 [59-58], p=0.23) were found in patients with and without myocarditis (Table 1, Supplemental Table 1 & Table 2).

Computed-tomography coronary angiography

Twenty-five patients underwent CTCA and all had sufficient image quality. No patients had significant obstructive coronary artery disease (lumen stenosis>50%, Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Focal infero-lateral myocarditis with no atherosclerotic disease.

Changes (white arrows) in the native and post contrast CMR T1 values (a & b), 18F-FDG PET focal uptake (c) and sub-endocardial fibrosis on CMR late gadolinium enhancement (d). There was no significant coronary artery disease on CTCA (e, f & g). Biochemical cardiac and inflammatory markers were low (hsTrop 2.72 ng/L, NT-proBNP <35 pg/ml, CRP 4 mg/L).

Positron emission tomography/computed-tomography

Vascular inflammation

Arterial inflammation in the ascending aorta by TBR was 1.97±0.35 (Supplemental Figure 2) and similar to historical or active controls (1.92 ± 0.32 and 2.03±0.05, p=0.74). There was no significant regional variation in TBR values in different aortic segments (Supplemental Table 7). No patients fulfilled the visual criteria for inflammation in the aorta or carotids (Supplemental Figure 3). There was no correlation with aortic FDG uptake (TBR) and CRP, hsTrop or viral load (Supplemental Table 8). Ascending aorta TBR was similar in patients with and without CMR myocarditis (1.93±0.18 vs 2.00±0.44, p=0.55) and with and without myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration on 18F-FDG-PET (1.97±0.17 vs 1.91±0.21, p=0.47).

Myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration

Two patients were not adequately fasted for cardiac analysis. Of the remaining, eight (30%, n=8/27) patients had evidence of myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration. Three patients had focal uptake (Figure 2), four focal on diffuse (Figure 3) and one diffuse (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Cardiac and pulmonary 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in 2 patients showing discordance between pulmonary and myocardial involvement.

Top panel (blue outline) represents a patient with significant myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration with some pulmonary involvement - 17% lung consolidation and 29% inflammation. Cardiac inflammatory cell infiltration (focal on diffuse bright spots in lateral anterior and septal walls). Bottom panel (red outline) represents another patient with no myocardial involvement but with significant lung consolidation (35%) and inflammation (54%).

Lung consolidation on CT (a & d, red contours), lung inflammation (b & e, blue contours), green contours lung parenchyma. Fused image (c & f showing lung inflammation with heat map on CT. Cardiac 18F-FDG PET shows inflammatory cell infiltration in the short axis (i & iv), vertical long-axis (ii & v) and horizontal long-axis views (iii & vi).

Twenty-two patients had both CMR and 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Of these eight patients had CMR-defined myocarditis by using the specific 2018 Lake Louise criteria, and 5/8 (53%) also had simultaneous evidence of inflammatory cell infiltration. Similarly, of the eight patients who had evidence inflammatory cell infiltration by 18F-FDG-PET/CT, 5/8 (53%) had myocardial oedema on CMR. 12 patients (55%, n=12/22) had no evidence of myocarditis or cellular uptake on CMR or 18F-FDG-PET/CT.

Pulmonary injury

Twenty-nine patients with acute COVID-19 infection, and five controls underwent pulmonary 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Overall, 25 patients had both CMR and pulmonary 18F-FDG-PET/CT performed.

In patients with acute COVID-19 the median amount of inflammation (based on 18F-FDG-PET) and consolidation (based on CT) as a percentage of total lung volume was 17% (IQR 5, 31) and 11% (IQR 7, 18) respectively. In controls, there was 0.18% (IQR 0.15, 0.57) inflammation and 3.0% (IQR 2.7, 3.1) consolidation.

When categorising patients who underwent both CMR and pulmonary 18F-FDG-PET/CT into tertiles, 7/25 patients had 0-5%, 9/25 had 5-25% and 9/25 had >25% inflammation of the total lung volume (Supplemental Table 7). Similarly, 5/25 patients had 0-7%, 10/25 had 7-15% and 10/25 had >15% consolidation of total lung volume. (Supplemental Table 9).

The degree of lung inflammation (15% [IQR 2-30%] vs 17% [10-31%], p=0.95) or consolidation (10% [8-15%] vs 13% [7-18%], p=0.85) was comparable in patients with and without myocarditis (Figure 3). Similarly, the degree of lung inflammation (7% [IQR 2-20%] vs 22% [13-38%], p=0.11) or consolidation (9% [8-12%] vs 15% [7-19%], p=0.23) was comparable in patients with and without myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration.

There was no association between the presence of myocarditis and the degree of lung injury. Of patient with CMR-based myocarditis 3/9 (37.5%) had severe pulmonary inflammation, compared to 5/17 (35.3%) without myocarditis (p=1.0). Patients with myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration, compared to those without, has numerically lower pulmonary inflammatory involvement (5% [2%-17%] versus 24%[13%-38%], p=0.05). There was no correlation between severity of lung inflammation (55% [IQR 52-50%] vs 54% [45-59], p=0.57) or consolidation (57% [51-50] vs 54% [49-59], p=0.52) with right ventricular (RV) ejection fraction. Similarly, no correlation was seen for severity of lung inflammation (81 ms/m2 [IQR 71-85%] vs 71 [55-79], p=0.35) or consolidation (79 ms/m2 [70-85] vs 74 [55-82], p=0.52) with indexed RV diastolic volumes (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge this is the first study to systematically use molecular imaging, alongside anatomical and functional modalities, to explore cardiovascular and pulmonary pathobiology in acute COVID-19 infection. We make some important observations. First, rates of myocarditis (by CMR criteria) and myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration (by 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging) were significant at 35% and 30% respectively. Second, the median burden of lung inflammation and consolidation was quantified at 17% and 11% of total lung volume respectively. Lung involvement, both inflammation and consolidation, did not correlate with presence of myocarditis or myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration. Third, vasculitis was not present in acute COVID-19. Finally, biochemical evidence of myocardial injury was not common with only two acute COVID-19 patients showing elevated troponin levels.

Our rates of myocarditis, despite recruiting patients with acute COVID-19, were lower than previously reported (1) but similar to other recent studies (2, 3). This in part reflects our choice of using the more specific 2018 Lake Louise criteria to define CMR-based myocarditis. Indeed, the prevalence of myocarditis rose from 1 in 3, to 1 in 2 when applying the most sensitive criteria as in previous studies (1). Using 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging myocardial inflammatory cell infiltration was present in 1 in 3 cases. Surprisingly, neither the presence of myocarditis nor myocardial cell infiltration was associated with biochemical evidence of cardiac injury. Myocarditis may not always result in cell necrosis and troponin release (16, 17). Further, troponin release my be dynamic (18, 19) and may not be appreciated on single point blood sampling on hospital admission. Finally, studies on myocarditis have generally been restricted to patients with troponin elevations in whom significant coronary disease has been excluded (20). In contrast, our study involved cardiac imaging of an unselected population with an acute viral infection, regardless of troponin concentration.

Whilst CMR-based tissue characterisation can indicate myocardial oedema, molecular imaging with 18F-FDG-PET/CT reflects myocardial cellular infiltration - a better indicator of an acute inflammatory process (21, 22). Of those patients who had CMR defined myocarditis, only 53% had inflammatory cell presence. This suggests acute myocardial inflammation may have either occurred prior to presentation, or oedema is not always due to direct cellular infiltration. SARS-CoV-2 infection is present in the myocardium in the majority of individuals dying from COVID-19 (22). Furthermore, in vitro studies have shown SARS-CoV-2 cytopathic infection of cardiac myocytes with macrophage and lymphocytic infiltration (1, 22, 23). However, a cytokine storm has also been implicated in COVID-19 infection (24, 25). This process occurs sometime after viral inoculation, and may also result in cardiac pathology without presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the myocardium (26). In this case, systemic cytokines may also cause systemic capillary leak (with resultant oedema) without cellular infiltration of all tissues (27). Therefore cardiac injury may result from a dual injury process; initially from viral infection, followed by a subsequent cardiac insult from a systemic inflammatory response. In keeping with this, we demonstrated that some patients had evidence of prior myocardial fibrosis without associated oedema, but then also had active oedema without fibrosis in other regions (Figure 1).

Whilst the pathogenesis of hypercoagulability in COVID-19 remains unclear, vascular thrombosis has been described in hospitalised patients (28). Endothelial injury and vascular inflammation have been postulated to play a central role (9, 29, 30). In contrast, our study did not find any supporting evidence of arterial inflammation in acute COVID-19. We further found no evidence of coronary thrombosis to explain the myocardial pathology observed on imaging (Figure 2).

Previous studies had demonstrated coronary artery obstruction and ischaemic injury patterns on CMR, however the study population was restricted to those with troponin elevations (3). As such, we can conclude that the mechanism of cardiac pathology in acute COVID-19 infection is unlikely to have occurred secondary to coronary atherosclerosis, and the reported high prevalence of vascular thrombosis is not due to an arterial vasculitic process (28).

Macrophages and monocytes are known to be involved in the pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and there is growing evidence of their involvement in COVID-19 related pulmonary injury (31). We showed that the degree of pneumonitis, by 18F-FDG-PET/CT, was variable, correlated degree of lung consolidation but was not associated with presence of myocarditis. This suggests that myocarditis can occur in patients with minimal lung involvement.

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, although achieving comprehensive phenotyping this was an observational study in a small COVID-19 population. Almost half of the patients received either dexamethasone or remdesevir which may have supressed the inflammatory response and underestimated myocardial inflammation. Scanning, however, was performed early in the clinical course. Secondly, our assessment of vasculitis was based on 18F-FDG-PET/CT uptake in the large vessels. Vascular inflammation in the smaller vessels, due to limited spatial resolution, may be undetected. However, if vascular inflammation was secondary to a systemic cytokine storm or immune response, it would have been expected that this would have been reflected in the aorta and the medium sized carotids. Thirdly, we excluded patients with severe COVID-19 infection who were unable to tolerate imaging limiting the generalizability of our findings in this population. Finally, we did not perform cardiac biopsy. Although this is the gold standard for the diagnosis of myocarditis, we performed deep phenotyping using three different imaging modalities. The combination of myocardial inflammatory cell identifaction by 18F-FDG-PET, and myocarditis detection by CMR (using the strictest criteria to identify oedema), make our findings robust.

In conclusions, for the first time in acute COVID-19 infection and with the use of multi-modality imaging we make the following observations. Myocarditis was present in one in three patients and the majority of these patients had evidence of inflammatory cell infiltration by cardiac 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Pneumonitis was ubiquitous in acute COVID-19 but this inflammation was not associated with CMR myocarditis. The mechanism of cardiac pathology in acute COVID-19 is non-ischaemic, and vascular thrombosis in acute COVID-19 is not due to a vasculitic process that involves large or medium sized vessels.

Source of Funding

British Heart Foundation (FS/19/17/34172) and the Global Challenges Research Fund (COV_03).

Disclosures

Nil.

Trial registration

This study has been registered at the ISRCTN registry (ID ISRCTN12154994) on 14th August 2020. Accessible at www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12154994

Central Illustration

Patient with acute COVID-19 were scanned on hospital admission. CMR revealed myocarditis in 1 in 3 patients using the most stringest diagnostic criteria. A myocardial inflammatory cell infiltrate identified by 18F-FDG PET/CT was present in 30% of all patients, and in the majority of patients with CMR defined myocarditis. No patient had significant coronary artery disease on CTCA scanning. No patient had vasculitis. Although significant pulmonary inflammation and consolidation was common, it was not associated with the presence of myocarditis. Troponin testing did not identify patients with imaging evidence of myocardial oedema or inflammatory cell infiltration.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab