Dangerous hidden side effect of Covid infection revealed by new study
Research published in the European Heart Journal revealed that a Covid infection could accelerate the ageing of blood vessels, particularly in women.
Vaccinated individuals show less stiffening in their arteries and stabilised symptoms over time in comparison to those who had not been protected against Covid.
Lead researcher Professor Rosa Maria Bruno, from Université Paris Cité, said: "We know that Covid can directly affect blood vessels. We believe that this may result in what we call early vascular ageing, meaning that your blood vessels are older than your chronological age and you are more susceptible to heart disease.
'If that is happening, we need to identify who is at risk at an early stage to prevent heart attacks and strokes."
The new study tested nearly 2,500 people from across the world, categorising them based on whether they had Covid and whether they had been hospitalised for it, both in a general ward and in an intensive care unit. Tests were taken six months after an infection and again after 12 months.
It measured each person's vascular age with a device that examines how quickly a wave of blood pressure travels between the artery in the neck and the legs. The higher the measurement meant the stiffer the blood vessels, indicating a higher vascular age.
It found that all three groups of patients who had a Covid infection had stiffer arteries compared to those who hadn't been affected.
The average increase in women was 0.55 meters per second for those who had mild Covid, 0.60 for those who had been hospitalised, and 1.09 for those in intensive care.
According to researchers, an increase of around 0.5 meters per second is "clinically relevant" and equivalent to ageing around five years. It also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, like heart attack, stroke or sudden cardiac arrest, in 60-year-old women by 3 per cent.
The difference between men and women could come down to immune systems, Prof Bruno added.
She said: 'Women mount a more rapid and robust immune response, which can protect them from infection. However, this same response can also increase damage to blood vessels after the initial infection.'
She said the virus acts on specific receptors in the body that are in the lining of the blood vessels. The virus will use these receptors to enter and infect cells.
Last month, it was reported that a new strain of Covid had spread across the UK, accounting for the highest proportion of cases - around 30 per cent.
Experts warned the Stratus strain was resisting immunity and had a unique symptom of giving people a hoarse voice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
5 minutes ago
- Medscape
You Say NOAC, I Say DOAC
Names matter. That's why I don't respond when people call me Steve for some inexplicable reason. So, it would be nice if we were a bit more consistent in our medical nomenclature. After all, why do we call it a heart attack but not a brain attack? Some renaming of diseases is clearly a good idea. I'm okay with the fact that Reiter syndrome is now reactive arthritis. Dr Reiter was not a good man. As a field, we are moving away from eponymous nomenclature, so my lifelong dream of being the first to diagnose Labos syndrome in some poor, unsuspecting patient is unlikely to come to fruition. But the diversity of our nomenclature is starting to get out of hand. If you have a sudden acute blockage in a coronary artery, your cardiologist might refer to it as a heart attack (if they think you're basic) or a myocardial infarction (if they think you're fancy) or an acute coronary syndrome (if they don't want you to ask any follow-up questions). But it would be nice if we could all get on the same page before the guideline writers come up with yet another term to confuse the new residents that started in July. TAVI vs TAVR, and Why Not 'Brain Attack'? The TAVI vs TAVR debate is similarly pointless. Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) tends to predominate in Europe (where the technique was invented), Asia, and other parts of the world, in the United States everyone talks about a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Technically, the outlanders are correct because the native aortic valve isn't 'replaced' during the procedure; it's just pushed to the margins like a washed-up celebrity. TAVI clearly makes more sense. I firmly expect that the United States will start calling them TAVIs just as soon as it switches over to the metric system. Once a term takes hold, it's difficult to dislodge it from the public consciousness. Despite efforts to rename strokes as brain attacks, the idea never seems to garner any traction. Granted, a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) isn't really an accident, and we have no problem calling it a transient ischemic attack (TIA), but for some reason, if brain tissue dies, we revert to the pathologic initialism CVA to reassure people that we know that they didn't do it on purpose. When the research community lumps strokes in with other cardiac events for a composite endpoint, they call it major adverse cardiac events (MACE), but occasionally they throw in an extra " C" for "cerebrovascular" (MACCE) to appease the neurologists. Maybe we should take a page from the nephrologists. They've renamed acute renal failure and chronic kidney disease to acute and chronic renal insufficiency. After all, decreased urine output in the acutely hypovolemic patient is renal success, not renal failure. (If anyone knows the source of this joke, please email me because I've genuinely forgotten.) In any case, the name change makes sense, even if I still write "CKD" in my notes and probably won't change unless someone makes me. So maybe it's time to rename heart failure and call it heart insufficiency. It is admittedly tough to explain to patients with a normal ejection fraction (EF) that they need to be seen in a heart failure clinic (or heart function clinic, if you're very trendy). Diastolic heart failure is hard enough to explain to residents, let alone patients. After all, their heart hasn't failed them; it's just not quite up to the task anymore. NOAC, DOAC, TSOAC? And while we're doing this etymologic reorganization, maybe we can finally decide what we're going to do with the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Their rebranding to DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants) held some promise and made sense, given dabigatran's mechanism of action (it binds directly to factor IIa). But people oscillate back and forth. With the CHEST guidelines using the former and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis suggesting we describe them according to their specific target and mode of administration, we aren't likely to see agreement on what we should call these anticoagulants anytime soon. If anyone suggests we use some new appellation like TSOAC (target-specific oral anticoagulant), ODI (oral direct inhibitor), or SODA (specific oral direct anticoagulant), you have my permission to stop being friends with them. We need fewer, not more, options. Some pretend that the N in NOAC actually meant 'non-vitamin K' all along, but that requires a degree of historical revisionism. I'm not a complete slave to tradition. I haven't worn a double-breasted suit in ages. And when the powers-that-be decided that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) should become metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), I wasn't too upset. Sure, I sometimes slip up and throw in an extraneous F for " fatty" (MASFLD) and I still see plenty of radiology reports talking about fatty liver, but there is something to be said for defining a disease by what causes it, not what doesn't. But it's important to know when a ship has sailed. Try as you might, we will never as a society call it PASC instead of 'long COVID.' "Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19" might be more accurate in terms of terminology, but the pandemic was such a global and universal event that no amount of proselytizing is going to change terms crystalized in the public discourse. The official name of the virus may have been SARS-CoV-2, but we all called it the COVID-19 virus and eventually officialdom just came to accept it. Language is messy. William of Normandy invaded England in 1066, and because he won the Battle of Hastings, we have one set of names for live animals and another set of names for when they're food. The English language has too many silent g's for us to be too worked up about the lack of consistency in our verbiage. Perhaps all we can do is accept the inherent chaos of medical nomenclature and do the best we can with the limited vocabulary at our disposal. As long as we don't give them Class I antiarrhythmics after their heart attack, the patients won't care all that much what we call their ACS.
Axios
35 minutes ago
- Axios
Why COVID-19 risk might be "very high" in these 5 states
Western states appear most at risk for COVID-19 cases right now, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the "stratus" variant and other versions of the virus circulate nationally. The big picture: Wastewater viral activity for COVID-19 has shifted from "moderate" to "low" this month, though some states in the West buck the trend. Driving the news: The CDC's map for COVID-19 wastewater monitoring showed these states had "very high" viral activity levels from Aug. 3 to Aug. 9, 2025: Utah Nevada Texas Alaska Hawaii Worth noting: California, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and Connecticut all have "high" levels of viral activity, per data the CDC last updated on Aug. 14. What they're saying: "If you see increased wastewater viral activity levels, it might indicate that there is a higher risk of infection," the CDC says. Context: Nationally, viral activity dipped into the "low" range after the recent reemergence of the " stratus" COVID variant sent viral activity levels into the "moderate" phase. As of Aug. 12, the CDC said COVID infections "are growing or likely growing" in the majority of states. A dozen states are seeing high COVID test positivity rates compared to the rest of the country, according to recent CDC regional data. Still, case numbers are below peak pandemic levels. Current COVID-19 variants, like "stratus" What to know: These states are seeing a spike in viral activity and cases as the "nimbus" or NB.1.8.1 variant remains the top strand across the U.S., per CDC estimates from June. The LP.8.1 variant, a descendent of omicron, is the second most common, accounting for roughly one-third of cases. The XFG variant, also known as "stratus," is still third-highest with 14% of cases. However, according to CDC trends, the XFG variant made up 65% of the variants detected in wastewater nationwide as of Aug. 9. COVID symptoms for the current variants are similar to normal strains, such as fever, chills, cough, sore throat and congestion. However, there have been reports of "hoarseness" with the "stratus" variant and "razor-blade" sore throats for the "nimbus" variant. What's next with COVID? Rises in COVID-19 cases in the late summer and early fall aren't uncommon given children are headed back to school. What to watch: The CDC's next updates will likely point out how impactful the school year has been so far in terms of case positivity and viral activity.
Gizmodo
35 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Stone Age People Brutalized Their Prisoners of War, New Evidence Suggests
When we think of Stone Age people, most imagine small communities living in caves, cutting into their most recent hunt with primitive tools, and imitating their environment with illustrative rock art. People during the Neolithic, however—the last stage of the Stone Age (around 9000 to 3300 BCE)—also waged wars and absolutely demolished their enemies. In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, researchers present horrific evidence suggesting that Neolithic people in northeastern France mutilated foreign invaders. Their findings might represent some of the earliest known indications of gruesome victory celebrations related to war. The international team of researchers analyzed skeletal remains and severed limbs from burial pits dating to between 4300 and 4150 BCE at two sites near Strasbourg, Achenheim and Bergheim. 'A total of 82 humans are analyzed,' they wrote in the study. Their analysis revealed 'differences between victims and nonvictims and suggest that the former were members of invading groups brutally killed, perhaps exposed and deposited in pits—together with trophies in the form of severed upper limbs—by local groups in what might be one of the earliest well-documented instances of martial victory celebrations in prehistoric Europe,' they explained. Previous research in the Upper Rhine Valley had already shown that this time period was marked by military invasions and cultural upheaval, but scientists didn't know whether the human remains at Achenheim and Bergheim were of locals or foreigners and/or prisoners of war. In addition to the severed upper limbs, the researchers also identified injuries such as skull fractures that had not healed. The team, including Valladolid University's Teresa Fernandez-Crespo, suggests these victims met violent ends during war. The individuals without these sorts of unhealed injuries, on the other hand, likely received a regular burial. To investigate the differences between those who were brutally killed and those who weren't, Fernandez-Crespo and her colleagues conducted isotopic analyses. By identifying ratios of isotopes—variants of the same element—in the remains, they discovered that, while the non-victims were locals, the victims of war violence came from other regions. According to the researchers, this indicates that the victims were likely invaders killed by locals. 'In view of their demise, it is probable that the identities of these victims can be attributed to socially remote, nonlocal enemies that became trophies or captives during battles or raids and that may have been considered by their captors as not properly 'human' and hence warranting such treatment,' the researchers explained. For once, the term 'overkill' applies literally.
