"this is just one thing showing up and it's an early study"
It is indeed an early study.
Early and narrow.
Very narrow.
And it is a study that is objectively not anywhere statistically significant or representative, for a number of reasons, including (but not confined to):
- the small sample size,
- the fact that the cohort was unselected,
- the narrow, and not-young, demographic,
- one-third of the cohort was seriously ill to begin with, requiring hospitalisation (one-fifth of the cohort requiring ventilation),
- the cohort presented with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions including:
- hypertension,
- diabetes,
- known coronary artery disease,
- asthma,
- chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.'
In summary, it is a very narrow study (to their credit, by their own implied admission in the Limitations section, and unsurprising given the relative newness of the virus):
They've taken a small sample of some middle-aged people, with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, applied one certain kind of imaging protocol and postprocessing approach, and come up with results (78% cardiac involvement (no surprises there) and 60% myocardial inflammation.
I think that the final sentence of the conclusion is prescient, viz., "These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19".
That they might do, but what they most definitely do not do is provide any sort of clinical evidence.
.
Expand
