Rathore, Sawai Singh

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS) is an IgE‐mediated hypersensitivity to galactose‐α‐1,3‐galactose, triggered by tick bites. It typically presents with delayed onset allergic or gastrointestinal symptoms after red meat consumption. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of clinical symptoms and outcomes in AGS patients. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify studies with at least five AGS patients that utilized alpha‐gal IgE for diagnosis and reported symptomatology. A random‐effects model calculated pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for clinical characteristics of AGS. Results Of the 739 studies screened, 15 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1162 AGS patients (57% female). Urticaria was identified as the most prevalent symptom (63.8%, CI: 34.5–88.3, I 2 = 98.8%). At least one gastrointestinal symptom was reported in 69.2% of patients (CI: 49.3–85.9, I 2 = 97.5%), including abdominal pain (58.3%, CI: 36.0–78.9, I 2 = 96.0%), diarrhea (41.7%, CI: 22.3–62.5, I 2 = 93.4%), nausea (39.1%, CI: 29.2–49.6, I 2 = 79.1%), and vomiting (31.1%, CI: 21.9–41.2, I 2 = 70.4%). Tick bite history was recalled by 78.7% (CI: 46.4–98.1; I 2 = 99.1%), and 91.8% (CI: 84.6–96.8; I 2 = 70.3%) had symptom onset ≥ 1 h post red meat intake. Symptomatic improvement was observed in 86.5% (CI: 73.9–95.4, I 2 = 80.9%) of patients, with complete resolution in 42.7% (CI: 26.4–59.8, I 2 = 73.8%). Conclusion AGS typically presents with delayed onset allergic and GI symptoms after red meat intake, often with tick bite history. Majority of patients report symptomatic improvement on follow‐up.

Background: Invasive management strategies for myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) include complete revascularization (successful revascularization of all coronary artery lesions or segments ≥1.5 mm in diameter with ≥50% diameter stenosis) and incomplete revascularization (including culprit-only revascularization). However, non-culprit lesion management strategy in elderly patients remains ambiguous due to a lack of representation of this cohort in randomized trials (RCTs) and higher cardiovascular complication risks. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of elderly individuals (age ≥65 years) with MI and MV-CAD submitted to complete vs. incomplete (including culprit-only) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The outcomes of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, and any revascularization. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Thirteen studies (3 RCTs, 1 post hoc analysis of previous RCT, and 9 observational studies) with a total of 12,289 patients were included. Complete revascularization (CR) was performed in 5,232 patients, while 7,057 patients underwent incomplete revascularization (IR). The mean age was 80.46 years for CR and 80.73 years for IR and the mean durations of follow-ups ranged from 12-78 months. As compared to IR, the CR group was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, p<0.0001) (Figure 1), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, p=0.0005), recurrent MI (OR 0.62, 95% CI .47 to 0.81, p=0.0005) (Figure 2), and any revascularization (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.86, p=0.01). Conclusion: Among elderly patients with MI and MV-CAD, CR is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, and any revascularization.

Background: Ambiguity surrounds invasive management of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTE-MI) in older adults (≥70 years), and the number of elderly patients undergoing invasive treatment in clinical practice remains relatively low. Data comparing the efficacy of invasive versus conservative medical management for NSTEMI in this population is conflicting due to the under-representation or exclusion of the older population from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the long-term outcomes of invasive versus conservative medical strategies in older patients with NSTEMI. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization, and readmission for cardiovascular causes. Results: A total of nine RCTs with 4,336 patients (Invasive: 2,368; Control: 1,968) with median follow-ups ranging from 6-63.6 months were included. Compared with a conservative strategy, an invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of recurrent MI (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81; p<0.001) (Figure 1) and unplanned revascularization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.56; p<0.001). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.39-1.35; p=0.42) (Figure 2), CV mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.43-1.23; p=0.23), or readmission for cardiovascular causes (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63-2.33; p=0.57) between invasive and conservative management strategies. Conclusion: In older patients ≥70 years old with NSTE-MI, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of recurrent MI and revascularization when compared with conservative management. However invasive strategy did not offer any benefit in mortality or cardiac-cause related readmission over conservative management.

AbstractNew‐onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in COVID‐19 raises significant clinical and public health issues. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aims to compile and analyze the current literature on NOAF in COVID‐19 and give a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and outcomes of NOAF in COVID‐19. A comprehensive literature search was carried out using several databases. The random effect model using inverse variance method and DerSimonian and Laird estimator of Tua2 was used to calculate the pooled prevalence and associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results for outcome analysis were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI and pooled using the Mantel‐Haenszel random‐effects model. The pooled prevalence of NOAF in COVID‐19 was 7.8% (95% CI: 6.54%–9.32%),a pooled estimate from 30 articles (81 929 COVID‐19 patients). Furthermore, our analysis reported that COVID‐19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of developing severe disease compared with COVID‐19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OR = 4.78, 95% CI: 3.75–6.09) and COVID‐19 patients with a history of pre‐existing atrial fibrillation (OR = 2.75, 95% CI: 2.10–3.59). Similarly, our analysis also indicated that COVID‐19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of all‐cause mortality compared with, COVID‐19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OR = 3.83, 95% CI: 2.99–4.92) and COVID‐19 patients with a history of pre‐existing atrial fibrillation (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.35–3.96). The meta‐analysis did not reveal any significant publication bias. The results indicate a strong correlation between NOAF and a higher risk of severe illness and mortality. These results emphasize the importance of careful surveillance, early detection, and customized NOAF management strategies to improve clinical outcomes for COVID‐19 patients.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in COVID-19 raises significant clinical and public health issues. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compile and analyze the current literature on NOAF in COVID-19 and give a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and outcomes of NOAF in COVID-19. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was carried out using several databases. The random effect model using inverse variance method and DerSimonian and Laird estimator of Tua2 was used to calculate the pooled prevalence and associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results for outcome analysis were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Results: The pooled prevalence of NOAF in COVID-19 was 7.8% (95% CI, 6.54% to 9.32%), pooled estimate from 30 articles (81,929 COVID-19 patients). Furthermore, our analysis reported that COVID-19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of developing severe disease compared with COVID–19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OR= 4.78, 95% CI 3.75 to 6.09) and COVID-19 patients with a history of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (OR= 2.75, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.59) . Similarly, our analysis also indicated that COVID–19 patients with NOAF had a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with, COVID–19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (OOR= 3.83, 95% CI 2.99 to 4.92) and COVID-19 patients with a history of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (OR= 2.32, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.96). The meta-analysis did not reveal any significant publication bias. Conclusion: The results of the current meta-analysis a high prevalence rate of NOAF among COVID-19 patients. Further the study reported higher disease severity with NOAF compared with COVID-19 patients without a history of atrial fibrillation and with a history of atrial fibrillation.

AbstractBackgroundLeft ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is frequently employed in patients with end‐stage heart failure. The outcomes of addressing the repair of all substantial aortic valvular disease at the time of LVAD implantation remain unclear. We sought to assess the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation concomitant with aortic valve procedures (AVPs) compared with isolated LVAD implantation.MethodsA literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception till June 2022. Primary outcomes included short‐term mortality and long‐term survival. Random effects models were used to compute mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 14 observational studies (N = 52 693) met our inclusion criteria. Concomitant LVAD implantation and AVPs were associated with higher short‐term mortality (OR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.06–2.42]; p = 0.02) and mean CPBt (MD = 43.25 [95% CI, 22.95–63.56]; p < 0.0001), and reduced long‐term survival (OR = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55–0.88]; p = 0.003) compared with isolated LVAD implantation. No difference in the odds of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 1.05 [95% CI, 0.79–1.39]; p = 0.74) and mean length of hospital stay (MD = 2.89 [95% CI, −4.04 to 9.82]; p = 0.41) was observed between the two groups. On adjusted analysis, short‐term mortality was significantly higher in the LVAD group with concurrent AVPs when compared with the isolated LVAD group (aHR = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.20–1.87]; p = 0.0004).ConclusionsConcurrent AVPs were associated with higher short‐term mortality and reduced long‐term survival in patients undergoing LVAD implantation compared with isolated LVAD implantation.