Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran, low-dose CT scans have become a crucial tool for screening and diagnosis of COVID-19 in suspected patients because of the shortage of RT-PCR tests (
16,
21). On the other hand, the CT scan has been widely available in Iran, and this fact has made the CT scan a useful alternative to RT-PCR. Moreover, the latest national guideline for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients in Iran suggested low-dose CT scans besides RT-PCR for the management of all cases with moderate to severe stages of the disease (
16). Therefore, low-dose CT scan is now a routine and common part of patient management in COVID-19 centers in Iran. Despite the widespread use of low-dose CT scans in Iran, clinicians still do not take full advantage of them. In this study, we showed how cardiac indices in CT scans of COVID-19 patients can be used for risk stratification and evaluation of the outcomes.
As a result of the COVID-19 relationship with the cardiovascular system, poor outcomes can be experienced in 2 different ways. Previous epidemiological investigations reported that patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disorders such as coronary artery disease, heart failure, and hypertension are at higher risk for adverse outcomes of COVID-19 (
22,
23). In our study, comorbidities like hypertension and heart failure were more common in deceased patients. On the other hand, COVID-19, with different mechanisms, causes cardiovascular complications in patients, including acute cardiac injury, heart failure, arrhythmia, myocarditis, acute coronary syndrome, and pleural effusion, which increase the risk of mortality and morbidity (
22,
24). In this regard, our results showed that an increase in CTR, PA/A, and IVC diameter raised the likelihood of mortality in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the findings of the present investigations admitted this two-sided relationship and its importance in predicting the outcomes in COVID-19 patients.
Traditionally, PA/A has been regarded as a reliable indicator of pulmonary hypertension because it correlates with the mean pulmonary artery pressure and predicts poor clinical outcomes in respiratory diseases (
25). During the COVID-19 pandemic, several studies reported that increased PA/A is associated with poor prognosis in patients (
3,
26). In a study by Eslami et al. in 2020, PA/A > 1 increased the odds and hazard of death, but it was not significantly correlated with them (
3). Another study in Egypt also reported that PA/A > 1 had no significant relationship with the severity of disease in COVID-19 cases (
27). A study in Japan found that PA/A > 0.9 was significantly associated with severe respiratory exacerbation and poor prognosis among hospitalized patients (
28). Also, Dhok's investigation in India showed PA/A > 0.9 was related to the COVID-19 severity (
29). A Turkish study in 2021 found the PA/A > 0.82 as an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality according to the considerable increase in odds of death, while the hazard ratio did not show significant changes (
26). In this regard, our study also presented a significant relationship between PA/A > 1 and an increase in the odds ratio of hospitalized death. As it is clear, there is still controversy in accounting PA/A as an independent indicator for the prediction of COVID-19 outcomes in the clinic. One of the main sources for the heterogenicity in findings is using different cut-offs for the PA/A ratio. It seems that the best method for defining the PA/A ratio cut-off is to calculate optimal values in every study according to basic artery diameter in the study population. Also, it is suggested that a meta-analysis be performed in order to draw a conclusion from this controversy. Considering the high PA/A ratio can indicate pulmonary hypertension and microvascular thrombi is the leading cause, determining the ratio is important clinically, as it allows clinicians to assess patients who might benefit from early management of pulmonary hypertension and conduct cardiac echocardiography and anticoagulant therapy.
A CTR > 0.5 indicates heart enlargement and is used as a prognostic factor in different disorders, such as respiratory and cardiac diseases (
30). Due to COVID-19's multi-organ nature and the fact that it affects both the heart and lungs, it was expected that CTR would change among the patients. Some investigations from different parts of the world showed that cardiomegaly was associated with disease severity (
3,
31). In Kanayama et al.'s study in Japan, cardiomegaly was found to be strongly associated with the severity of the disease on admission (
31). An Iranian study also reported that cardiomegaly showed significant relationships with odds and hazard of death among hospitalized patients (
3). Also, Truszkiewicz et al.'s study in Poland found that CTR can be a useful prognosis predictor of right ventricle enlargement in COVID-19 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (
2). On the other hand, some reports indicate that cardiomegaly was not related to an increase in the risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 cases. In a study by Khosravi et al. (
32), cardiomegaly was more common in deceased cases, but it did not show a significant association with worse outcomes. In addition, although our findings showed more frequency of cardiomegaly in deceased patients, it did not have significant relationships with an increase in odds and hazard of death. As there are different results on both sides, CTR > 0.5 cannot be accounted as a prognostic factor for COVID-19 yet. Therefore, more evidence and investigations are needed to determine cardiomegaly's role in predicting the COVID-19 prognosis.
The present study faced some limitations that need to be mentioned for improvement of future studies. First, only the images of CT scans of the patients on admission were used for analysis. It is suggested that the changes in cardiac indices in serial imaging be considered in future studies. Second, the thoracic motion and respiratory changes were not controlled and evaluated in the study, which may influence some measurements of indices. Third, we did not evaluate normal values of ratios in our study and used defined cut-offs. The cut-offs of ratios according to the normal features of the study population should be determined.
In conclusion, cardiac indices in chest CT of COVID-19 patients can be accounted for in the prediction of patient outcomes, such as PA/A > 1 ratio, which increases the likelihood of in-hospital death. Considering the controversy about the findings for suggesting CT-measured cardiac indices as prognostic factors in COVID-19 patients, further primary and secondary studies are needed.