ArticleInfection2025
Cardiac structure and function 1.5 years after COVID-19: results from the EPILOC study.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 on cardiac function and structure: A systematic review and a hybrid individual participant data meta-analysis.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Review
- Incident Heart Failure Risk Following COVID-19 Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Long-term cardiovascular function and cardiopulmonary performance in athletes after COVID-19: results from the COSMO study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Manifestations of Patients with Long COVID.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImpaired left and right ventricular (LV/RV) function during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection has been predominantly reported in hospitalized patients, but long-term cardiac sequelae in large, well-characterized cohorts remain inconclusive. This study evaluated cardiac structure and function in individuals with post-Coronavirus disease (COVID) syndrome (PCS) compared to recovered controls (CON), focusing on associations with cardiopulmonary symptoms and rapid physical exhaustion (RPE).
methodsThis multicenter, population-based study included 1154 participants (679 PCS, 475 age- and sex matched CON; mean age 49 ± 12 years; 760 women) 1.5 years post-infection. Transthoracic echocardiography assessed LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), RV GLS and RV free wall strain (FWS), and other measures. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) measured maximum respiratory oxygen uptake (VO
resultsPCS participants exhibited significantly lower LV GLS (-20.25% [-21.28 - -19.22] vs. -20.73% [-21.74 - -19.72], p = 0.003), reduced diastolic function (E/A 1.16 [1.04-1.27] vs. 1.21 [1.1-1.32], p = 0.022) and decreased TAPSE (24.45 mm [22.14-26.77] vs. 25.05 mm [22.78-27.32], p = 0.022) compared to CON, even after adjusting for confounders. RV strain values were similar between groups. LV GLS correlated inversely with VO
conclusionsThis study demonstrates subtle yet consistent reductions in LV function, specifically LV GLS and diastolic function, and exercise capacity in PCS compared to CON. While these changes are within reference ranges, their potential impact on clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. These findings highlight the need for cardiac assessments and long-term follow-up in symptomatic PCS 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.