Examining the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programs for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: a critical review.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is the most common cardiovascular reason for hospital admission, particularly among patients older than 60 years old. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) comprises approximately 50% of all heart failure cases. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) is an alternative option to enhance the participation rate in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) interventions for patients who are not able to attend center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR). The purpose of this review is to clarify the extent to which present studies of HBCR align with the core components defined by both the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the British Association for Cardiac Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR). METHODS: A critical review was conducted through four databases, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, to identify randomized controlled trials up until June 2022. We scrutinized the commonalities between BACPR and ESC and developed a list of standards. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Among the 87 papers selected for full-text screening, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six papers possessed a high proportion of fidelity to essential standards, four studies had a medium alliance, and one intervention had a low level of alliance. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of included studies had medium to high alignment with standards and core components. However, a need for more attention to long-term strategy as an important standard is revealed. Rapid identification and initial assessment are the most met standards; however, lifestyle risk factor management and long-term outcomes were recognized as the least met standards.

The Prophylaxis Effect of Ephedrine on Hemodynamic Variation in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Surgery with Spinal Anesthesia.

Background: Performing spinal anesthesia with at least hemodynamic variation and complications is always challenging for anesthesiologists. In this study, we investigated the effect of ephedrine and placebo on hemodynamic changes in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy with spinal anesthesia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind prospective clinical trial was conducted on 120 patients aged 20‒60 years with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classes I and II. Patients who were candidates for percutaneous nephrolithotomy with spinal anesthesia were divided into intervention (received 1 cc = 5 mg ephedrine) and control groups (received 1 cc normal saline). All vital parameters, including HR (heart rate) and NIBP (noninvasive blood pressure), were recorded perioperatively T0-T25) and finally at the end of surgery time (Tf). The results were analyzed by SPSS software version 23, and a P value ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results: The mean arterial pressure during surgery between T3 and T9 and the mean heart rate in times of T3-T8 in the intervention group were higher than in the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, and vomiting and the amount of prescribed ephedrine, atropine, and ondansetron in the control group were higher than in the intervention group (P=0.001). Seven patients in the control group and four in the intervention group had shivering, but this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.43). Conclusion: This study showed the effectiveness of the prescription of 5 mg ephedrine two minutes before changing from the lithotomy position to the supine in maintaining hemodynamic stability, reducing hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, and vomiting, and the amount of prescribed ephedrine, atropine, and ondansetron. Trial Registrations. This trial is registered with IRCT20160430027677N22.

Investigating the effect of pregabalin on postoperative pain in non-emergency craniotomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures performed in the suboccipital and subtemporal regions are associated with severe pain. The present study was designed to determine pregabalin's effect on postoperative pain in elective craniotomy. METHOD: This double-blind prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted on 50 patients aged 20-60 with ASA classifications I and II. The patients who qualified for elective craniotomies were split into intervention (two capsules =300 mg pregabalin) and control groups (two capsule starch). Patients were also assessed at recovery, 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery for their pain and level of sedation. Data were analyzed by SPSS software version 23, and a P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean pain score in the intervention group was lower than the control group at recovery (p = 0.224), 2 h (p = 0.001), 6 h (p = 0.011), and 12 h (p = 0.032) after surgery. The methadone consumption in the control group was significantly higher than the intervention group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the level of sedation (p > 0.05). The mean heart rate at induction (p = 0.01), 15 min (p = 0.01), 30 min (p = 0.025), recovery (p = 0.031), and 2 h (p = 0.021) after surgery and the MAP at recovery, 2 h, and 6 h after surgery was significantly lower than the control group (p = 0.029), (p = 0.013), and (p = 0.038), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our investigation demonstrated the effectiveness of pregabalin two hours before surgery on decreasing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption without disturbance in neurological examinations and any specific adverse effects.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Cardiovascular Disease Risks in More Than 134000 Individuals in 29 Randomized Clinical Trials and 157000 Individuals in 30 Prospective Cohort Studies: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: According to the findings from observational studies and clinical trials assessing the effect of vitamin D supplements on cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), there are still contradictory results. This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of vitamin D supplements on CVDs considering cohort studies and clinical trials. Study Design: A systematic review. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed by two reviewers independently until 2022. The study effect is risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) according to Mantel Haenszel's random-effects model. Then, Stata version 14 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: In clinical trial studies, the incidence of CVDs among the vitamin D-consuming group was not significantly different from that in the placebo group (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.03; P=0.77; I 2=0%). CVD mortality was also not significantly different between the two groups (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.05; P=0.72; I2=0%). In cohort studies, circulating 25 (OH) D increased the risk of CVD incidence by 31% (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.19-1.45) and CVD mortality by 37% (RR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.17-1.61). CONCLUSION: According to current evidence from clinical trials, vitamin D supplementation should not be recommended for CVD prevention. However, there is a direct association between vitamin D deficiency and the incidence of CVDs as well as its mortality. According to the results of clinical trial studies carrying higher levels of scientific evidence, it can be concluded that vitamin D supplementation does not exert a significant effect on the incidence, mortality, and reduction of CVDs.