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.

A Unique Triad of Invasive Sinusitis, Brain Abscess with Focal Cerebritis, and COVID-19.

BACKGROUND We present a case of invasive sinusitis with rhinocerebral infection in a patient who had mild symptoms of COVID-19 infection and did not receive any immunosuppressive therapies. CASE REPORT A 49-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled diabetes presented to the hospital with multiple generalized tonic clonic seizures. He had recently been diagnosed with mild COVID-19 and was treated at home with supportive care only. He was found to have cerebritis in the right frontal lobe along with right fronto-ethmoid sinusitis. He underwent extensive testing with nasal endoscopy with gram stain and culture, cryptococcal studies, 1-3-Beta-D glucan, blood cultures, fungal CSF studies, Lyme disease, HIV, Fungitell assay, and galactomannan studies, which were all negative. He was started on i.v. antibacterial therapy with cefepime, vancomycin, and metronidazole along with amphotericin B. After 2 weeks, his repeat imaging revealed progression of cerebritis along with new early abscess. Given these findings, his antibiotics were changed to meropenem and the amphotericin B dose was increased. He was recommended debridement and sinus surgery but refused. During the course of treatment, he developed acute kidney injury and was switched to Posaconazole. Unfortunately, the patient decided to leave against medical advice 6 weeks into admission. He was advised to continue Posaconazole and levofloxacin but he could only afford levofloxacin. He was then recommended long-term levofloxacin. He has since recovered, with resolution of cerebritis noted in follow-up imaging 1 year later. CONCLUSIONS Our patient had mild COVID-19 infection and presented with secondary infective complications, which are usually associated with an immunocompromised state, despite receiving no immunosuppressives. It is imperative that all clinicians treating COVID-19 be watchful for fungal or bacterial co-infections in patients with active SARS-CoV-2 infection, even if the presenting symptoms are mild, particularly if other risk factors are present.