Comparison of telecardiac rehabilitation with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation and usual care: a protocol for systematic review including a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac diseases are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation is proven to be beneficial in reducing morbidity, mortality and rehospitalisation rates. Recently, more emphasis is given to home-based telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation due to the recent pandemic of SARS-CoV-2. We plan to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the differences in functional capacity (FC) (measured in peak oxygen uptake (PVO2)) and health-related quality of life (hr-QoL) between telecardiac rehabilitation and both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) and usual care (UC) separately. It will showcase the feasibility of using telemonitored cardiac rehabilitation as an alternative to CBCR considering the ease of performance, safety and limiting unnecessary contact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was structured according to the published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Protocol guidelines. We will devise a search strategy to use online databases to search for the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Inclusion criteria will include adult population (18 years or older) suffering from at least one cardiac disease referred for cardiac rehabilitation comparing telecardiac rehabilitation with both CBCR and UC. Exclusion criteria will be RCTs in non-English language, hybrid studies, cross-over trials, observational studies and case series. The outcome of interest will be FC measured in PVO2 and hr-QoL. The articles will be reviewed by two independent reviewers and a third reviewer will be available to adjudicate any conflicts. The bias in the selected studies will be assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The overall bias of the studies will be assessed. The selected articles will be reviewed and the data will be collected on Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for analysis. These data will include number of subjects in the intervention arm and the comparator arm (which will either be CBCR or UC), measures of FC and hr-QoL and SD. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be considered based on heterogeneity among the study effect estimates and the number of available studies for each outcome. Results of the pooled estimates will be reported as standardised mean difference (and 95% CI) with fixed-effect model, if heterogeneity is not significant (I2 <50%). Otherwise, random-effects model will be used for I2 >50%. The data of the subjects who completed the rehabilitation programme of the study period will be used to calculate the effect estimates (per-protocol effect). Publication bias in the meta-analysis will be assessed using Egger's test and funnel plot. The strength of body of evidence of the outcomes will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. Data analysis will be performed using Stata SE V.15.0 (College Station, Texas, USA). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There will be no direct involvement of the patient or the public in the conception, design, data collection, and analysis of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated via journal articles. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021245461.

Preadmission Oral Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter and Death or Thrombotic Events During COVID-19 Admission.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) and COVID-19 are associated with an elevated risk of arterial and venous thrombosis. Whether preadmission oral anticoagulation (OAC) for AF reduces the incidence of in-hospital death or thrombotic events among patients with COVID-19 is unknown. We identified 630 patients with pre-existing AF and a hospitalization diagnosis of COVID-19 and stratified them according to preadmission OAC use. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to relate preadmission OAC to composite in-hospital mortality or thrombotic events. Unadjusted composite in-hospital mortality or thrombotic complications occurred less often in those on than not on preadmission OAC (27.1% vs 46.8%, p <0.001). After adjustment, the incidence of composite in-hospital all-cause mortality or thrombotic complications remained lower with preadmission OAC (odds ratio 0.37, confidence interval 0.25 to 0.53, p <0.0001). Secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality (16.3% vs 24.9%, p = 0.007), intensive care unit admission (14.7% vs 29.0%, p <0.001), intubation (6.4% vs 18.6%, p <0.001), and noninvasive ventilation (18.6% vs 27.5%, p = 0.007) occurred less frequently, and length of stay was shorter (6 vs 7 days, p <0.001) in patients on than those not on preadmission OAC. A higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events. In conclusion, among patients with baseline AF who were hospitalized with COVID-19, those on preadmission OAC had lower rates of death, arterial and venous thrombotic events, and less severe COVID-19.

SARS-COV-2/COVID-19: scenario, epidemiology, adaptive mutations, and environmental factors.

The coronavirus pandemic of 2019 has already exerted an enormous impact. For over a year, the worldwide pandemic has ravaged the whole globe, with approximately 250 million verified human infection cases and a mortality rate surpassing 4 million. While the genetic makeup of the related pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) was identified, many unknown facets remain a mystery, comprising the virus's origin and evolutionary trend. There were many rumors that SARS-CoV-2 was human-borne and its evolution was predicted many years ago, but scientific investigation proved them wrong and concluded that bats might be the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolins act as intermediary species to transmit the virus from bats to humans. Airborne droplets were found to be the leading cause of human-to-human transmission of this virus, but later studies showed that contaminated surfaces and other environmental factors are also involved in its transmission. The evolution of different SARS-CoV-2 variants worsens the condition and has become a challenge to overcome this pandemic. The emergence of COVID-19 is still a mystery, and scientists are unable to explain the exact origin of SARS-CoV-2. This review sheds light on the possible origin of SARS-CoV-2, its transmission, and the key factors that worsen the situation.

Preadmission Statin Treatment and Outcome in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Preadmission statin therapy is associated with improved outcome in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether inhibition of inflammation and myocardial injury are in part responsible for this observation has not been studied. The aim of the present study was to relate preadmission statin usage to markers of inflammation, myocardial injury, and clinical outcome among patients with established atherosclerosis who were admitted with COVID-19. Adult patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and/or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included. Statin use was related to the primary composite clinical outcome, death, intensive care unit admission, or thrombotic complications in sequential multivariable logistic regression models. Of 3,584 adult patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,360 patients met study inclusion criteria (mean age 73.8 years, 45% women, 68% White). Baseline troponin and C-reactive protein were lower in patients on statins before admission. In an unadjusted model, preadmission statin usage was associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome (42.2% vs 53.7%, odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.80], p <0.001). This association remained significant after age, gender, ethnicity, other patient clinical characteristics, and cardiovascular medications were added to the model but became null when troponin and C-reactive protein were also included (odds ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.09] p = 0.18). In conclusion, among patients with established cardiovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19, preadmission statin therapy was associated with improved in-hospital outcome, an association that was negated once inflammation and myocardial injury were considered.

Association Between COVID-19 Diagnosis and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

IMPORTANCE: There has been limited research on patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with STEMI with vs without COVID-19 infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients admitted between January 2019 and December 2020 (end of follow-up in January 2021) with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI at 509 US centers in the Vizient Clinical Database (N = 80 449). EXPOSURES: Active COVID-19 infection present during the same encounter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were propensity matched on the likelihood of COVID-19 diagnosis. In the main analysis, patients with COVID-19 were compared with those without COVID-19 during the previous calendar year. RESULTS: The out-of-hospital STEMI group included 76 434 patients (551 with COVID-19 vs 2755 without COVID-19 after matching) from 370 centers (64.1% aged 51-74 years; 70.3% men). The in-hospital STEMI group included 4015 patients (252 with COVID-19 vs 756 without COVID-19 after matching) from 353 centers (58.3% aged 51-74 years; 60.7% men). In patients with out-of-hospital STEMI, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention by COVID-19 status; patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 were significantly less likely to undergo invasive diagnostic or therapeutic coronary procedures than those without COVID-19. Among patients with out-of-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs out-of-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 15.2% vs 11.2% (absolute difference, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.1%-7.0%]; P = .007). Among patients with in-hospital STEMI and COVID-19 vs in-hospital STEMI without COVID-19, the rates of in-hospital mortality were 78.5% vs 46.1% (absolute difference, 32.4% [95% CI, 29.0%-35.9%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with out-of-hospital or in-hospital STEMI, a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19 was significantly associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared with patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 from the past year. Further research is required to understand the potential mechanisms underlying this association.

Cardiovascular Outcomes of Patients Referred to Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Home Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (HBCR) has been considered a reasonable alternative to Center-based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CBCR) in patients with established cardiovascular disease, especially in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of patients referred to HBCR remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 269 patients referred to HBCR at Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (PVAMC). From November 2017 to March 2020, 427 patients were eligible and referred for Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) at PVAMC. Of total patients, 158 patients were referred to CBCR and 269 patients to HBCR based on patient and/or clinician preference. The analysis of outcomes was focused on HBCR patients. We compared outcomes of patients who were referred and attended HBCR vs patients referred but did not attend HBCR (Non-HBCR) from 3 to 12 months of the referral date. HBCR consisted of face-to-face entry exam with exercise prescription, weekly phone calls for education and exercise monitoring, with adjustments where applicable, for 12-weeks and an exit exam. Primary outcome was composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, separately. We used cox proportional methods to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI. We adjusted for imbalanced characteristics at baseline: smoking, left ventricular ejection fraction and CABG status. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients (mean age: 72, 98% Male) were referred to HBCR, however, only 157 (58%) patients attended HBCR. The primary outcome occurred in 30 patients (19.1%) in the HBCR group and 30 patients (30%) in the Non-HBCR group (adjusted HR=0.56, CI 0.33-0.95, P=.03). All-cause mortality occurred in 6.4% of patients in the HBCR group and 13% patients in the Non-HBCR group 3 to 12 months after HBCR referral (adjusted HR=0.43, CI 0.18-1.0, P= .05). There was no difference in cardiovascular hospitalizations (HBCR: 5.7% vs Non-HBCR: 10%, adjusted HR 0.57, CI 0.22-1.4, P= .23) or all cause hospitalizations at 3 to 12 months between the groups (HBCR: 12.7% vs Non-HBCR: 21%, adjusted HR 0.53, CI 0.28-1.01, P= .05). CONCLUSION: Completion of HBCR among referred patients was associated with a lower risk of the combined all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalizations up to 12 months. Based on the outcomes, HBCR is a reasonable option that can improve access to CR for patients who are not candidates of or cannot attend CBCR. Randomized-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.