ArticleIndian heart journal
Serial evaluation of biventricular function in COVID-19 recovered patients using speckle tracking echocardiography.
Article in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term Evolution of Post-COVID-19 Echocardiographic Parameters in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Comparative Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe persistence and outcomes following myocardial injury subsequent to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection has not been properly elucidated. We assessed sub-clinical bi-ventricular dysfunction using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in post COVID-19 patients.
methodsA total of 189 subjects following recovery from COVID-19 infection were enrolled. Detailed echocardiography including STE along with clinical, hematological, biochemical and inflammatory parameters were assessed for all. Patients were divided into four groups (asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe) based on severity of COVID-19 infection. Additionally, 90 healthy individuals were enrolled as controls. All these patients were followed up for one year following enrolment.
resultsSubclinical LV and right ventricle (RV) dysfunction were seen in 58 (30.7 %) and 55 (29.1 %) patients respectively at baseline. Significant difference was observed in mean LVGLS values among the three groups (mild: -21.5 ± 2.8 %; moderate: -17 ± 7.1 %; severe: -12.1 ± 4 %; P < 0.0001). Over a year of follow-up, significant improvement in LVGLS from baseline (-19.1 ± 5.8 %) was observed (-19.9 ± 4.6 %; P < 0.0001). Similarly, RVFWS (-23.5 ± 6.3 % vs -23.8 ± 5.8 %; P = 0.03) had significant improvement from baseline to one year of follow-up. Reduced LVGLS was reported in 12 (6.3 %) subjects while impaired RVFWS was documented in 10 (5.3 %) subjects at one year of follow-up.
conclusionsSubclinical LV and RV dysfunction were seen in nearly a third of recovered COVID-19 patients. Over a year of follow-up, significant improvement in subclinical LV and RV dysfunction was noted.
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.