Diagnostic performance of point-of-use ultrasound of resuscitation outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 3265 patients.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography in the setting of resuscitation can provide information as to the cause of the cardiac arrest, as well as indicators of futility. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the value of point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) in the assessment of survival for adult patients with cardiac arrest. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane have been searched from databases inception until March 2nd 2021. The search was limited to adult patients with cardiac arrest and without publication dates or country restrictions. Papers were chosen if they met the required criteria relating to the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this diagnostic technique concerning resuscitation outcomes. RESULTS: This systematic review identified 20 studies. Overall, for survival to hospital discharge, PoCUS was 6.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7% to 8.0%) and 2.1% specific (95% CI 0.8-4.2%). PoCUS sensitivity and specificity for return of spontaneous circulation were 23.8% (95% CI 21.4-26.4%) and 50.7% (95% CI 45.8-55.7%) respectively, and for survival to admission 13.8% (95% CI 12.2-15.5%) and 20.1% (95% CI 16.2-24.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not allow unambiguous recommendation of PoCUS as a predictor of resuscitation outcomes and further studies based on a large number of patients with full standardization of operators, their training and procedures performed were necessary.

Prediction value of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) in COVID-19 patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In COVID-19, the rapid prediction of the severity of a patient's condition using modern biomarkers can accelerate the implementation of appropriate therapy, and thus improve the patient's prognosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted of data available in the literature on the differences in baseline suPAR blood concentration between patients (1) who tested positive and negative for COVID-19, (2) who had severe and non-severe COVID-19, and (3) COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors. RESULTS: SuPAR levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative and positive patients varied and amounted to 3.61±1.59 ng/ml vs. 6.45±3.13 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -3.18; 95%CI: -4.71 to -1.66; p<0.001). suPAR levels among non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients were 7.06±2.64 ng/ml and 5.06±3.16 ng/ml (MD = 0.18; 95%CI: -2.48 to 2.83; p=0.90), respectively. Pooled analysis showed that suPAR levels between severe versus critical COVID-19 patients to be 5.59±1.54 ng/ml and 6.49±1.43 ng/ml, respectively (MD = -1.00; 95%CI: -1.31 to -0.70; p<0.001). The suPAR levels between ICU survivors versus non-survivors amounted to 5.82±2.33 ng/ml and 8.43±4.66 ng/ml (MD = -3.59; 95%CI: -6.19 to -1.00; p=0.007). In the case of in-hospital mortality, the mean suPAR level among survivors to hospital discharge was 5.63±1.27 ng/ml, compared to 7.85±2.61 ng/ml for patients who did not survive (MD = -3.58; 95%CI: -5.42 to -1.74; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SuPAR levels are significantly elevated in severe COVID-19 illness and maybe useful in predicting mortality. Further studies are needed to determine cut-off points and clarify the association of suPAR levels with disease progression. This is of utmost importance given the ongoing pandemic and overburdened health care systems.

TIMES TO ACT. Italian-Spanish-Polish-Uzbek Expert Forum Position Paper 2022. Dyslipidemia and arterial hypertension: The two most important and modifiable risk factors in clinical practice.

Hypertension and lipid disorders are two of the main cardiovascular risk factors. Both risk factors - if detected early enough - can be controlled and treated with modern, effective drugs, devoid of significant side effects, available in four countries as different as Italy, Spain, Poland, and Uzbekistan. The aim herein, was to develop this TIMES TO ACT consensus to raise the awareness of the available options of the modern and intensified dyslipidemia and arterial hypertension treatments. The subsequent paragraphs involves consensus and discussion of the deleterious effects of COVID-19 in the cardiovascular field, the high prevalence of hypertension and lipid disorders in our countries and the most important reasons for poor control of these two factors. Subsequently proposed, are currently the most efficient and safe therapeutic options in treating dyslipidemia and arterial hypertension, focusing on the benefits of single-pill combination (SPCs) in both conditions. An accelerated algorithm is proposed to start the treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, if the target low-density-lipoprotein values have not been reached. As most patients with hypertension and lipid disorders present with multiple comorbidities, discussed are the possibilities of using new SPCs, combining modern drugs from different therapeutic groups, which mode of action does not confirm the "class effect". We believe our consensus strongly advocates the need to search for patients with cardiovascular risk factors and intensify their lipid-lowering and antihypertensive treatment based on SPCs will improve the control of these two basic cardiovascular risk factors in Italy, Spain, Poland and Uzbekistan.

An alternative to airborne droplet transmission route of SARS-CoV-2, the feco-oral route, as a factor shaping COVID-19 pandemic.

The Chinese scenario, a rapid increase in the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infections and sudden decline, is uncommon worldwide. Enormous differences in COVID-19 severity among individual countries are the striking findings of the pandemics. It has been demonstrated that a mild course of COVID-19 is associated with gastrointestinal symptoms, less inflammatory response, and better prognosis. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was observed longer in the gastrointestinal tract than in respiratory swabs, promoting feco-oral transmissions and mild virus attenuation. The spread of the pandemic and its severity might, consequently, depends on the dominant environmental route of infection and emerging immunity. We hypothesize that the feco-oral SARS-CoV-2 transmission may help to achieve the long-term immunity against COVID-19, since it enables the continuous contact with viral antigens in the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in lower mortality rate. To conclude, countries producing rice through traditional methods developed rapidly emerging long-lasting population immunity, possibly through increased SARS-CoV-2 antigen exposure in the gastrointestinal tract. Our hypothesis brings attention to this potential route of herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 which warrants further investigation in the future.

Role of Epicardial Adipose Tissue in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Review.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading causes of death worldwide. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is defined as a fat depot localized between the myocardial surface and the visceral layer of the pericardium and is a type of visceral fat. EAT is one of the most important risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events and a promising new therapeutic target in CVDs. In health conditions, EAT has a protective function, including protection against hypothermia or mechanical stress, providing myocardial energy supply from free fatty acid and release of adiponectin. In patients with obesity, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes mellitus, EAT becomes a deleterious tissue promoting the development of CVDs. Previously, we showed an adverse modulation of gene expression in pericoronary adipose tissue in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Here, we summarize the currently available evidence regarding the role of EAT in the development of CVDs, including CAD, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Due to the rapid development of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also discuss data regarding the association between EAT and the course of COVID-19. Finally, we present the potential therapeutic possibilities aiming at modifying EAT's function. The development of novel therapies specifically targeting EAT could revolutionize the prognosis in CVDs.

Effect of Coronary Artery Disease on COVID-19-Prognosis and Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Patients with pre-existing CAD were shown to have a more severe course of COVID-19, but this association has not been clarified. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between CAD and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched Scopus, Medline (PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to 2 November 2021. There were 62 studies with a total population of 49,286 patients included in the meta-analysis. CAD occurrence in survivor vs. non-survivor groups varied and amounted to 9.2% vs. 22.9%, respectively (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.39; I2 = 70%; p < 0.001). CAD was also associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease and was (10.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, for severe vs. non-severe groups (OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.59 to 3.27; I2 = 72%; p < 0.001). The role of history of CAD in mortality and severe condition in COVID-19 presents itself as prominent-although a risk of bias in retrospective trials needs to be assessed, in case of our meta-analysis the statistically significant results when it comes to higher mortality among patients with CAD compared to non-CAD patients, a more severe condition observed in patients with CAD, and a visibly more frequent admission to intensive care unit in patients with CAD, it seems that an incidence of cardiovascular events plays a role in COVID-19 prognosis.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.

Outcomes and mortality associated with atrial arrhythmias among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the adult population. Herein, is a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the impact of AF/atrial flutter (AFL) on mortality, as well as individual complications in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A systematic search of the SCOPUS, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane databases was performed. The a priori primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. A random-effects model was used to pool study results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies which included 33,296 patients were involved in this meta-analysis. Inhospital mortality for AF/AFL vs. no-AF/AFL groups varied and amounted to 32.8% vs. 14.2%, respectively (risk ratio [RR]: 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.79-2.65; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality in new onset AF/AFL compared to no-AFAFL was 22.0% vs. 18.8% (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.54-2.24; p < 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was required for 17.7% of patients with AF/AFL compared to 10.8% for patients without AF/AFL (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.62; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reveals that AF/AFL is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and may be used as a negative prognostic factor in these patients. Patients with AF/AFL are at higher risk of hospitalization in ICU. The presence of AF/AFL in individuals with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of complications, such as bleeding, acute kidney injury and heart failure. AF/AFL may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to the hemodynamic compromise of cardiac function itself or hyperinflammatory state typical of these conditions.

How to Maintain Safety and Maximize the Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in COVID-19 Patients: Insights from the Recent Guidelines.

Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has remained a challenge for governments and healthcare systems all around the globe. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and significant mortality. The pandemic increased the rate of cardiac arrest and the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). COVID-19, with its pathophysiology and detrimental effects on healthcare, influenced the profile of patients suffering from cardiac arrest, as well as the conditions of performing CPR. To ensure both the safety of medical personnel and the CPR efficacy for patients, resuscitation societies have published modified guidelines addressing the specific reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, we briefly describe the transmission and pathophysiology of COVID-19, present the challenges of CPR in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, summarize the current recommendations regarding the algorithms of basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and pediatric life support, and discuss other aspects of CPR in COVID-19 patients, which potentially affect the risk-to-benefit ratio of medical procedures and therefore should be considered while formulating further recommendations.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020, placing the heavy burden on the health systems all over the world. The population that particularly has been affected by the pandemic is the group of patients suffering from diabetes mellitus. Having taken the public health in considerations, we have decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus on in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A systematic literature review (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane) including all published clinical trials or observational studies published till December 10, 2020, was performed using following terms "diabetes mellitus" OR "diabetes" OR "DM" AND "survival" OR "mortality" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19". RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included out of the 7327 initially identified studies. Mortality of DM patients vs non-DM patients was 21.3 versus 6.1%, respectively (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.65, 3.64; P < 0.001), while severe disease in DM and non-DM group varied and amounted to 34.8% versus 22.8% (OR = 1.43; 95%CI: 0.82, 2.50; P = 0.20). In the DM group, the complications were observed far more often when compared with non-DM group, both in acute respiratory distress (31.4 vs. 17.2%; OR = 2.38; 95%CI:1.80, 3.13; P < 0.001), acute cardiac injury (22.0% vs. 12.8%; OR = 2.59; 95%CI: 1.81, 3.73; P < 0.001), and acute kidney injury (19.1 vs. 10.2%; OR = 1.97; 95%CI: 1.36, 2.85; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings, we shall conclude that diabetes is an independent risk factor of the severity of COVID-19 in-hospital settings; therefore, patients with diabetes shall aim to reduce the exposure to the potential infection of COVID-19.

Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12-2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.37; I2 = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.54; I2 = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80; I2 = 0.48; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial.

Pleiotropic Effects of Acetylsalicylic Acid after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting-Beyond Platelet Inhibition.

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is one of the most frequently used medications worldwide. Yet, the main indications for ASA are the atherosclerosis-based cardiovascular diseases, including coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite the increasing number of percutaneous procedures to treat CAD, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the treatment of choice in patients with multivessel CAD and intermediate or high anatomical lesion complexity. Taking into account that CABG is a potent activator of inflammation, ASA is an important part in the postoperative therapy, not only due to ASA antiplatelet action, but also as an anti-inflammatory agent. Additional benefits of ASA after CABG include anticancerogenic, hypotensive, antiproliferative, anti-osteoporotic, and neuroprotective effects, which are especially important in patients after CABG, prone to hypertension, graft occlusion, atherosclerosis progression, and cognitive impairment. Here, we discuss the pleiotropic effects of ASA after CABG and provide insights into the mechanisms underlying the benefits of treatment with ASA, beyond platelet inhibition. Since some of ASA pleiotropic effects seem to increase the risk of bleeding, it could be considered a starting point to investigate whether the increase of the intensity of the treatment with ASA after CABG is beneficial for the CABG group of patients.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of effect of vitamin D levels on the incidence of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease primarily affecting the respiratory tract, however due to the nature of the pathogenesis it is able to affect the whole body. So far, no causative treatment has been found and the main strategy when dealing with COVID-19 relies on widespread vaccination programs and symptomatic treatment. Vitamin D due to its ability to modulate the immunological system has been proposed as a factor playing role in the organism response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to perform this meta-analysis which aimed to establish a connection between vitamin D status and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration Databases and Scopus electronic databases were searched for relevant studies from database inception to May 10th, 2021. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Thirteen studies providing data for 14,485 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean vitamin D levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was 17.7 ± 6.9 ng/mL compared to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients 14.1 ± 8.2 ng/mL (MD = 3.93; 95% CI 2.84-5.02; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low serum vitamin D levels are statistically significantly associated with the risk of COVID-19 infection. Supplementation of vitamin D especially in the deficiency risk groups is indicated.

Should we supplement zinc in COVID-19 patients? Evidence from a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary retrospective reports showed that zinc supplementation may decrease mortality in patients with COVID-19, postulating the potential therapeutic efficacy of zinc in the management of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We sought to summarize the studies published to date regarding the antiviral activity of zinc in patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of hospitalized patients receiving zinc supplementation and those treated with standard care. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and length of stay in hospital or intensive care unit (ICU). RESULTS: Data relating to 1474 patients included in 4 studies were analyzed. Survival to hospital discharge was 56.8% in the zinc group compared with 75.9% in the nonzinc group (P = 0.88). In-hospital mortality was 22.3% in the zinc group compared with 13.6% in the standard care group (P = 0.16). The mean (SD) length of hospital stay was 7.7 (3.7) days in the zinc group and 7.2 (3.9) days in the standard treatment group (P <⁠0.001). The mean (SD) length of ICU stay was 4.9 (1.7) days in the zinc group and 5.8 (1.9) days in the standard care group (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation did not have any beneficial impact on the course of COVID-19 evaluated as survival to hospital discharge and in-hospital mortality. The zinc-supplemented group had longer hospital stay despite shorter ICU stay. At present, there are no evidence-based data to support routine zinc supplementation in patients with COVID-19.

Statins in COVID-19 Therapy.

Inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3methylgultaryl-coenzyme A reductase (statins) are one of the main groups of drugs used in preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases worldwide. They are widely available, cheap, and well-tolerated. Based on statins' pleiotropic properties, including improvement of endothelial dysfunction, antioxidant properties, atherosclerotic plaque stabilization, and inhibition of inflammatory responses, it can be hypothesized that the use of statins, at least as an adjuvant in antiviral therapy, may be justified. All these effects might be especially beneficial in patients with COVID-19, suffering from endothelial dysfunction, microvascular and macrovascular thrombosis, and cytokine storm. Here, we review the recent data regarding the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 activity in host cells, proposed COVID-19 therapy, the pleiotropic activity of statins, and statins in clinical trials in respiratory infections. According to the guidelines of the European and American Cardiac Societies, in patients with cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk with concomitant COVID-19 it is recommended to continue statin treatment. However, the initiation of statin therapy de novo in COVID-19 treatment should only be done as part of a clinical trial.

Infections as Novel Risk Factors of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases: Pathophysiological Links and Therapeutic Implications.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) are the major cause of mortality worldwide. Despite the continuous progress in ASCVD therapy, the residual risk persists beyond the management of traditional risk factors. Several infections including Helicobacter pylori infection, periodontal disease, and viral infections are associated with the increased risk of ASCVD, both directly by damage to the heart muscle and vasculature, and indirectly by triggering a systemic proinflammatory state. Hence, beyond the optimal management of the traditional ASCVD risk factors, infections should be considered as an important non-classical risk factor to enable early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Here, we summarized the currently available evidence regarding the role of inflammation in ASCVD and the association between the particular infections and pathogens (Helicobacter pylori, periodontal disease, pneumonia, Cytomegalovirus, Human immunodeficiency virus, Herpes simplex virus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) on the development and progression of ASCVD. We also speculated about the potential therapeutic implications of the anti-inflammatory and anti-infective drugs on ASCVD outcomes, including drugs routinely administered in patients with ASCVD (statins, P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers) and novel strategies aiming at residual risk reduction (colchicine, anti-cytokine drugs, and methotrexate). Considering the emerging association between infections and ASCVD, it is crucial to determine the possible advantages of infection prevention and treatment in patients with ASCVD.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult). RESULTS: The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

Characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.