Assessing the Efficacy of RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Radiation Exposure to Operators in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

One of the leading environmental hazards, ionizing radiation, is linked to several detrimental health consequences in the body. RADPAD (Worldwide Innovations & Technologies, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas) is a sterile, lead-free, lightweight, disposable radiation protection shield. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of RADPAD protection drapes in the cardiac catheterization lab and how they can aid interventional cardiologists in becoming subjected to less scatter radiation. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies discussing the efficacy of RADPAD protection drapes in reducing radiation exposure to operators in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. A random-effects model was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for endpoints: primary operator exposure dose, dose area product (DAP), relative exposure, and screening time. Our analysis included 892 patients from six studies. Compared to the No-RADPAD group, primary operator exposure dose (E) was significantly lower in the RADPAD group (OR: -0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.43, I2 = 80.5%, p = 0.0001). DAP was comparable between both groups (OR: 0.008, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, p = 0.9066). There was no difference in the relative exposure (E/DAP) (OR: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.02, I2 = 0%, p = 0.90) and screening time (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.35, I2 = 0%, p = 0.22) between the two groups. The interventional cardiology laboratory is exposed to significantly less scatter radiation during procedures owing to the RADPAD protective drape. Consequently, all catheterization laboratories could be advised to employ RADPAD protective drapes.

Clinical Outcomes With Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec Versus Once-Daily Insulin Glargine U100 in Insulin-Naïve and Previously Insulin-Treated Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

AIMS: The once-weekly insulin icodec, a new basal insulin analog, may positively support a reduction in injection frequency and improve adherence to therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of insulin icodec compared with those of once-daily glargine U100. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception till September 2023. Data about clinical outcomes in both groups were extracted. Forest plots were generated using the random-effects model by pooling odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs). RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials and 2019 individuals with T2DM were included. In the pooled analysis, time in range was significantly higher (MD = 4.35; 95% CI: 1.65 to 7.05; p = 0.002) in the icodec group than in the once-daily glargine group. The HbA1c levels were significantly reduced (MD = -0.13; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; p = 0.02) in the weekly icodec group compared with those in the once-daily glargine group. The weight gain was significantly less in the glargine group than in the weekly icodec group (MD = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.78; p = 0.03); however, in the subgroup analysis, this change became statistically insignificant in both insulin-naïve and previously insulin-treated individuals. The results were comparable across two groups for fasting plasma glucose levels, hypoglycaemia alert (Level 1), clinically significant (Level 2) or severe hypoglycaemia (Level 3), and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Insulin icodec was associated with a reduction in glycated haemoglobin levels and higher time in range, with a similar safety profile as compared to insulin glargine U100. However, further evidence is still needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Clinical Outcomes With Nurse-Coordinated Multidisciplinary Care in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend nurse-inclusive multidisciplinary care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, there is no meta-analysis that focuses specifically on the impact of nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care. Considering this literature gap, we conducted this review that seeks to systematically synthesize the current evidence available regarding the impact of nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care on clinical outcomes in patients with HF. A comprehensive search was done using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception till July 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care with usual care in adult patients (>18 years) with acute or chronic HF. Data about all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalizations was extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forrest plots were generated using the random effects model. A total of 30 RCTs were included in the analysis with a total of 7950 HF patients. Our pooled analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in HF patients who received nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72-0.88, P = 0.0001). Similarly, there was a significantly lesser risk of HF-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.71, P = 0.00001) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.70-0.87, P = 0.0001) among HF patients with nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care as compared to the usual care. Nurse-coordinated multidisciplinary care significantly reduces the risk of all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations, and all-cause hospitalizations in HF patients' posthospital discharge.

Skeletonized versus Pedicled harvesting of internal mammary artery: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

There are two recognized internal mammary artery (IMA) harvesting techniques during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): pedicled and skeletonized. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes of the two harvesting techniques. A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted from inception till June 2023. Thirty-one studies with a total of 13005 patients met our inclusion criteria. The results from the included studies were presented as weighted mean difference (WMD) with its relevant standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables, while Odds Ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous variables. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and the results were pooled using a random effects model. The skeletonized IMA demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of sternal wound infection (SWI) compared to the pedicled IMA (OR = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.32-0.66]; p = 0.0001). The conduit length used was significantly longer in the skeletonized IMA (WMD -2.48, 95% CI, [-3.75, -1.20], P = 0.0001) and a significantly higher postoperative flow rate was observed while using skeletonization compared to the pedicled harvesting (WMD -13.11, 95% CI, [-22.52, -3.70], P = 0.006). However, no significant difference was seen in mortality between the two techniques (OR = 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.41]; p = 0.05). Pedicled harvesting demonstrated significantly reduced incidents of MI (OR = 1.38 [95% CI, 1.13-1.69]; p = 0.002), while significant results in graft patency were observed favoring pedicled harvesting over skeletonization (OR = 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.98]; p = 0.04).

Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Limited data comparing prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome are available. Online databases, including MEDLINE and Cochrane Central, were queried to compare these drugs. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis are myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, noncardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The secondary outcome is major bleeding. A total of 9 studies, including 94,590 patients (prasugrel group = 32,759; ticagrelor group = 61,831), were included in this meta-analysis. The overall mean age was 62.73 years, whereas the mean age for the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups was 63.80 and 61.65 years, respectively. Prasugrel is equally effective as compared with ticagrelor in preventing MI. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding. In patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel is equally effective when compared with ticagrelor in preventing MI.

Types of T-cell lymphoma-a cytogenetic perspective.

T cell lymphoma, a type of non-Hodgkin lymphomas is a rare form of malignancy with poor outcomes. TCLS are a heterogeneous group of lymphoid malignancies that occur in nodal and extranodal sites. There are two main types of TCLs namely T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia and Peripheral T-cell lymphomas classified based on clinical manifestations and cytogenetic mutations. The use of advance technology like karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) has allowed us to study TCLs in detail and to observe a different biochemical change that occurs in different TCLs allowing us to classify and treat them differently. This review focuses on the different mutations occurring in different TCLs and how they help us distinguish one type from another.

The dual role of empagliflozin: Cardio renal protection in T2DM patients.

Empagliflozin (Jardiance®) is an insulin independent antihyperglycemic agent used in treatment of T2D.The drug is a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor approved in USA and Europe and other countries of the world. As empagliflozin demonstrates cardioprotective and Reno protective properties its prime target are patients having CVD and CKD complicated by T2D. This review sheds light on mechanism of action of the drug and with the help of clinical outcomes establishes the use of empagliflozin in T2D patients. Although empagliflozin is a well-tolerated and easy to administer drug, it has some side effects and contraindications which are discussed in the article to help the reader weigh its beneficial effects against its adverse effect and understand its use in clinical medicine.