Citations

AbstractCorticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5–2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta‐analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID‐19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5–2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high‐dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse‐dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU‐free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse‐dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU‐free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05–2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high‐dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high‐dose corticosteroids—but not of pulse‐dose corticosteroids—significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12–0.77; p = 0.01). High‐dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse‐dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse‐dose corticosteroids—but not high‐dose corticosteroids—significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27–9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse‐dose group when compared to the high‐dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single‐center study, pulse‐dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID‐19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU‐free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high‐dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable.

Abstract Background As the use of antibiotics during the peripartum period increases, the incidence of autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is also increasing. In this study, we aim to assess if antibiotic exposure during the peripartum period affects the incidence of autoimmune diseases and ASD in the offspring. Methods We identified children (< 18 years of age) born in Olmsted County from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2012. Offspring with celiac disease (CD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or ASD diagnoses were matched to two controls on birth date, index date, mother’s age at delivery, and sex. Data from the mother’s medical records were retrieved to determine peripartum antibiotics use. Results A total of 242 cases and 484 matched controls were included in this study. Median age at the last follow-up was 11.3 years (range: 0.5–14.9), 73% were males in both groups. Odds of CD diagnosis was not statistically different between vaginal delivery with antibiotics compared with vaginal delivery with no antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32–1.85), similarly in IBD (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.53–10.98) and ASD (OR = 1.00, 95% CI:0.55–1.79). Preeclampsia or eclampsia was associated with offspring CD (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.05–9.78). Smoking history and diabetes mellitus were associated with offspring ASD (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.22–2.77 and OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.03–3.91, respectively). Conclusion In this cohort, we found no statistically significant association between peripartum antibiotics exposure and the development of CD, IBD, or ASD.

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

Importance: Right bundle branch block (RBBB) is observed in approximately 5-14% of patients with heart failure (HF). Multiple observational studies have reported the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in patients with HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with HF. Data Sources: We have systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts that described all cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with RBBB and HF. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome, i.e.: unadjusted event rates. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled reported risk ratio and hazard ratio. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: We found 12 relevant observational studies enrolling over 38,000 patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Included studies had at least a moderate quality. Seven of those evaluated prognosis of patients with RBBB and heart failure. After a mean follow up period of 2.5 years (range: 1-5 years), RBBB was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure but no BBB, RR 1.27, 95% CI (1.08-1.50), Figure 1. The other 5 studies evaluated CHF patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), comparing outcomes of patients with RBBB to those with LBBB. After a mean f/u period of 3 years, patients with RBBB were once again found to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.89. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB in patients with HF is associated with higher all-cause mortality in comparison to patients without inter-ventricular conduction defects, as well as LBBB patients in patients undergoing CRT setting.

Introduction: At-work stress is rapidly becoming a significant contributory cause of occupational disease, while sedentary work and dietary indiscretion, taken together, have contributed to cardiovascular disease, known to be associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of the CV-Ecosystem Model is to provide an individual approach by systematic environmental modification of the work site. Methods and Results: Our model which we term the CV-Ecosystem Model includes two basic tenets: 1) Workstation technologic design 2) Flexible physiologic activity. Workstation technologic design utilizes the services of a certified Ergonomist to engineer a comfortable, safe, and effective work environment. It is tailored to the unique physiologic needs of the worker while enhancing productivity within different environments. Computer aided design software would evaluate ergonomics to maximally mitigate the risk and incidence of eye strain, musculoskeletal disorders, repetitive movement disorders such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, etc unique to that work activity. Flexible physiologic activity would permit a worker to actively focus on basic needs during work time, on site; this would include exercise activity and food intake, channeled into healthy options. Exercise time would provide a sense of calm during stressful projects and enhance emotional well-being. In this regard, a three hour period of time, weekly, could be allocated to fitness or meditation. Conveniently located food stations could provide a variety of healthy, plant-based, fresh food options. Both would come with flexible, relative control and scheduling of these activities, within a social environment and context. Conclusions: The CV Ecosystem Model, due to its simple technology and relative low cost, could be successfully implemented in a number of enterprises, including all healthcare facilities, with benefit to employee health, wellbeing, and favorable to the business bottom line.

Objective: Multiple large population based observational studies have evaluated the association of various ECG changes with long term adverse outcomes demonstrating conflicting results regarding the significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB in healthy population. Methods: This systematic review follows an a priori established protocol and is reported following the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We systematically searched EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. We also consulted with content experts to recommend studies for screening. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting randomized trials and prospective cohort studies that described all cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome or unadjusted event rates. For statistical analysis, hazard ratios were considered to approximate risk ratios. The main outcomes of the study are all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Based on the eligibility, four large cohorts, with total patient count > 100,000 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and included studies were deemed to be of high quality. As demonstrated in Figure 1, RBBB was not associated increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.25) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.70-1.69). Conclusion: In asymptomatic healthy patients, RBBB is not associated with poor outcome.

Background The association between the 9p21-3 locus and coronary heart disease (CHD) is well known. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess whether this locus was associated with severity of coronary atherosclerosis. Data Sources Multiple relevant electronic databases were searched through September 2012 for English language studies with comparative design. Data extraction We tested the association of the 9p21-3 locus: 1) measures of severity of coronary atherosclerosis [number of diseased vessels, Gensini Score, Duke CHD Prognostic Index (Dc.PI)]. 2) angiographic outcomes [change in minimum lumen diameter ([[Unable to Display Character: &#8710;]]MLD) and number of new lesions at follow-up] and 3) key clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction and need for coronary revascularization). Genotypes were classified either as homozygous low risk (Lo) or homozygous high risk (Hi). Data Synthesis Relative risks (RR) were pooled using the random effects model. Seventeen distinct data sets that included 15,826 participants were analyzed. Ten studies (n=9807) reported number of diseased vessels at baseline. Hi genotype was associated with a 33.7% increased risk of triple vessel disease (95% CI 1.08-1.65; p=0.01). The Hi genotype was associated 0.27 higher baseline Gensini Score (95% CI 0.04-0.48; p=0.01) in 3787 individuals. The locus was not associated with Dc.PI [RR=0.21 (95% CI -0.14-0.55; p=0.25)]. The high risk genotype did not predict [[Unable to Display Character: &#8710;]]MLD or number of new lesions at follow-up. There was no difference between Hi and Lo genotypes in terms of all-cause mortality [RR=1.13 (95%CI 0.90-1.41;p=0.28)], recurrent myocardial infarction (95%CI 0.92-1.40; p=0.24) or frequency of coronary revascularization [RR=1.101 95% CI (0.78-1.57); p=0.56]. Conclusion An association between 9p21-3 and greater baseline severity of coronary atherosclerosis was seen in this meta-analysis. However no association was seen between 9p21-3 and adverse angiographic and clinical outcomes which may be due to diminishing genetic risk following dietary modification and statin therapy.

Background: It remains unclear if asthma is a risk factor associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search for studies published from January 1, 2019, to October 2, 2020. We included studies that evaluated outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and underlying asthma. Outcomes of interest included the need for hospitalization, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. The meta-analysis was conducted by using random-effects methodology. Results: A total of 389 studies were identified through data base searches. After abstract and full-text screening, 16 observational studies with 92,275 patients were included in the analysis. Of the 16 studies, 15 were retrospective and 1 was a prospective cohort study. The average age was 39.6 years, with 48% female patients. Six of the studies included pediatric patients, and one of these studies only evaluated pediatric patients. One study only evaluated pregnant patients. Among patients with COVID-19, the presence of asthma was not associated with any significant increase in risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.29-7.28]), length of hospitalization (1.59 days [‐0.55 to 3.74]), ICU admission (OR 1.65 [95% CI, 0.56-4.17]), or death (OR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.38-1.40]). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. Conclusion: Among the patients with COVID-19, asthma did not seem to significantly increase the risk of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.

AbstractBackgroundWe sought to evaluate the association between vitamin D deficiency and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection.MethodsMultiple databases from 1 January 2019 to 3 December 2020 were searched for observational studies evaluating the association between vitamin D deficiency and severity of COVID‐19 infection. Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data for the review. The main outcomes of interest were mortality, hospital admission, length of hospital stay and intensive care unit admission.ResultsSeventeen observational studies with 2756 patients were included in the analyses. Vitamin D deficiency was associated with significantly higher mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 2.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50–4.05; 12 studies; hazard ratio [HR]: 4.11, 95% CI: 2.40–7.04; 3 studies), higher rates of hospital admissions (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.48–3.21; 3 studies) and longer hospital stays (0.52 days; 95% CI: 0.25–0.80; 2 studies) as compared to nonvitamin D deficient status. Subgroup analyses based on different cut‐offs for defining vitamin D deficiency, study geographic locations and latitude also showed similar trends.ConclusionsVitamin D deficiency is associated with greater severity of COVID‐19 infection. Further studies are warranted to determine if vitamin D supplementation can decrease the severity of COVID‐19.