Farrukh, Ameer Mustafa

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.

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.