ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
COVID-19 and the risk of acute cardiovascular diseases: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, the results are inconsistent, and the causality remains to be established. We aimed to investigate the potential causal relationship between COVID-19 and CVDs by using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.
methodsSummary-level data for COVID-19 and CVDs including myocarditis, heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), arrhythmia and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were obtained from the IEU OpenGWAS project, a public genome-wide association study (GWAS). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were used as instrumental variables. Five complementary MR methods were performed, including inverse variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted mode and simple mode methods. IVW method was considered as the primary approach. Besides, sensitivity analyses, including Cochran's Q test, MR-Egger intercept test, and leave-one-out analysis, were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.
resultsAccording to the IVW results, our MR study indicated that genetically predicted COVID-19 was not causally connected with the risk of CVDs [myocarditis: odds ratio (OR) = 1.407, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.761-2.602, p-value = 0.277; HF: OR = 1.180, 95% CI = 0.980-1.420, p-value = 0.080; AMI: OR = 1.002, 95% CI = 0.998-1.005, p-value = 0.241; arrhythmia: OR = 0.865, 95% CI = 0.717-1.044, p-value = 0.132; VTE: OR = 1.013, 95% CI = 0.997-1.028, p-value = 0.115]. The supplementary MR methods showed similar results. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the causal estimates were robust.
conclusionThis two-sample MR analysis did not provide sufficient evidence for a causal relationship between COVID-19 and the risk of acute CVDs, which may provide new insights into the prevention of acute CVDs in COVID-19 patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.