Health Disparities in Cardiac Critical Care: Understanding Inequities, Barriers, and Pathways Toward Equitable Access and Enhanced Outcomes.

Health disparities in cardiac critical care continue to pose significant challenges in achieving equitable access and outcomes for diverse populations. This literature review examines the disparities in access to and outcomes of cardiac critical care interventions across different populations, identifies barriers contributing to these disparities, and explores strategies to address them. A literature review was conducted by searching electronic databases for relevant articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Studies focusing on health disparities in cardiac critical care, access to interventions, outcomes, and equity were included. Data were extracted and synthesized using a narrative approach. Disparities in access to cardiac critical care interventions were identified, including socioeconomic factors, lack of health insurance, geographic barriers, racial and ethnic disparities, language and cultural barriers, limited health literacy, and lack of awareness and education. These barriers led to delayed diagnoses, suboptimal utilization of interventions, and limited access to specialized cardiac care. Disparities in outcomes were also observed, with certain populations experiencing worse clinical outcomes and higher morbidity and mortality rates. This review emphasizes the existence of disparities in cardiac critical care and emphasizes the necessity for interventions to address these disparities. Specific strategies should concentrate on enhancing healthcare access, diminishing financial obstacles, expanding health insurance coverage, fostering patient-centered approaches, and harnessing telemedicine and technology. Collaborative efforts among policymakers, healthcare providers, researchers, and patient advocates are vital to advocate for policy changes and implement evidence-based interventions that foster equitable care. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies, implementation science, patient engagement, global perspectives, and rigorous evaluation of intervention strategies to advance our knowledge and guide endeavors in reducing health disparities in cardiac critical care.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy versus surgical revascularization for critical limb-threatening ischemia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral artery disease (PAD) that can lead to limb amputation and significantly reduce quality of life. In addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization are the two revascularization options for CLTI. In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate about the best approach for CLTI patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization for CLTI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for studies comparing the outcomes of endovascular therapy versus surgery in patients with CLTI. The primary outcomes were major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary outcomes included risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and length of hospital stay. Pooled data was analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were used to assess the bias of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (47,609 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect favors surgery over endovascular intervention in terms of MALE [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28), P = 0.04]. Endovascular therapy is associated with lower MACE rates compared to surgery [OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.51-0.76), P < 0.00001]. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure as well as the length of hospital stay was lower for endovascular intervention. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups [OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12, P = 0.52; Fig. 3i], and the pooled studies were homogeneous [P = 0.39; I2 = 5%]. CONCLUSION: Surgery may be the preferred treatment option for CLTI patients, as it is associated with a lower risk of MALE than endovascular therapy. However, endovascular therapy may be associated with a lower risk of MACE and lower rates of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and shorter hospital stays. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups. Ultimately, the decision to use endovascular therapy or surgery as the primary treatment strategy should be based on a multi-disciplinary team approach with careful consideration of patient characteristics and anatomy.

Which should you choose for post operative atrial fibrillation, carvedilol or metoprolol? A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common arrhythmic complication following cardiac surgery. Current guidelines suggest beta-blockers for the prevention of POAF. In comparing metoprolol succinate with carvedilol, the later has sparked interest in its usage as an important medication for POAF prevention. METHODS: We considered randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and retrospective studies that evaluated the efficacy of carvedilol versus metoprolol for the prevention of POAF. After literature search, data extraction, and quality evaluation, pooled data were analyzed using either the fixed-effect or random-effect model using Review Manager 5.3. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias of included studies. The incidence of POAF was the primary endpoint, while mortality rate and bradycardia were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In meta-analysis 5 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies with a total of 1000 patients were included. The overall effect did not favor the carvedilol over metoprolol groups in terms of mortality rate [risk ratio 0.45, 95 % CI (0.1-1.97), P=0.29] or incidence of bradycardia [risk ratio 0.63, 95 % CI (0.32-1.23), P=0.17]. However, the incidence of POAF was lower in patients who received carvedilol compared to metoprolol [risk ratio 0.54, 95 % CI (0.42-0.71), P < 0.00001]. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, carvedilol may minimize the occurrence of POAF more effectively than metoprolol. To definitively establish the efficacy of carvedilol compared to metoprolol and other beta-blockers in the prevention of POAF, a large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required.