RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the clinical course and outcomes of children 12-18 years of age who developed probable myopericarditis after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of 25 children, aged 12-18 years, diagnosed with probable myopericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for myopericarditis at 8 US centers between May 10, 2021, and June 20, 2021. We retrospectively collected the following data: demographics, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus detection or serologic testing, clinical manifestations, laboratory test results, imaging study results, treatment, and time to resolutions of symptoms. RESULTS: Most (88%) cases followed the second dose of vaccine, and chest pain (100%) was the most common presenting symptom. Patients came to medical attention a median of 2 days (range, <1-20 days) after receipt of Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. All adolescents had an elevated plasma troponin concentration. Echocardiographic abnormalities were infrequent, and 92% showed normal cardiac function at presentation. However, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, obtained in 16 patients (64%), revealed that 15 (94%) had late gadolinium enhancement consistent with myopericarditis. Most were treated with ibuprofen or an equivalent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for symptomatic relief. One patient was given a corticosteroid orally after the initial administration of ibuprofen or an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; 2 patients also received intravenous immune globulin. Symptom resolution was observed within 7 days in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that symptoms owing to myopericarditis after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination tend to be mild and transient. Approximately two-thirds of patients underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, which revealed evidence of myocardial inflammation despite a lack of echocardiographic abnormalities.
Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/genética , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Imagem Cinética por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Miocardite/etiologia , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinas Sintéticas/efeitos adversos , Adolescente , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/genética , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Criança , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Miocardite/diagnóstico , Miocardite/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Vacinas de mRNARESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the similarities and differences in the evaluation and treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at hospitals in the US. STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.