Pulakurthi, Yashwitha Sai

Background: Bariatric surgery (BS) has been shown to be beneficial in improving co-morbid conditions in morbidly obese patients. Long-term cardiovascular complications remain undefined and warrant further investigation. We examined the prevalence and risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in obese patients who underwent BS. Methods: PUBMED/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed using relevant keywords to search prospective and retrospective studies reporting AF with long-term (at least >1-year follow-up) follow-up in patients who had undergone BS. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis and subgroup analysis. I 2 statistics was used to identify substantial (>75%) heterogeneity. Results: Nine studies (3 USA, 2 UK, 4 Sweden) including 24,164 patients who had undergone BS (mean BMI cut off: 35, mean age 42 years) with 29,330 controls were included in the analysis with a median follow-up of 8 years. Pooled prevalence of AF was lower in BS arm (3.0%, 95%CI: 1.4%-5%) as compared to non-BS arm (3.8%, 95% CI: 1.8%-5.0%). The Forest Plot (Fig. 1) depicts significantly reduced odds of having AF in patients who have undergone BS vs controls (OR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.60-0.91, I 2 =70.2%, p<0.01). Sensitivity analysis using the leave-one-out method did confirm equivalent results. On subgroup analysis, AF prevalence in the BS group was slightly higher in studies with a mean age of ≥50 years (4.8%, 0-12%) as compared to cohorts with mean age <50 (2.0%, 1.4-5.0%). The pooled rate of AF was low on short-term follow-up compared to long-term follow-up after BS: 1.5% (0.9-2.5%) in 1-5 years, 1.9% (0.2-4.5%) in 6-10 years, 5.4% (0-13.9%) ≥10 years of BS. Conclusions: Obese patients undergoing BS had nearly 25% lower risk and lower pooled rate of AF when compared to controls over 8 years of follow-up. The protective effect of BS on reduced risk of AF was seen to gradually wane over longer follow-up which warrants continued efforts to effectively control CVD risk factors.

Abstract Background: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. Results: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. Conclusion: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

AbstractThe purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = −0.49 days [95% CI = −3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19.