A review on the deeper understanding of inflammation and infection of the thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: To review the current literature regarding infection and inflammation of the thoracic aorta and to summarise its aetiologies, pathogenesis and clinical presentation. Additionally, the authors sought to compare diagnostic methods and to analyse the different management options. METHOD: A comprehensive electronic search using PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted to find relevant journal articles with key search terms including: 'aortitis', 'thoracic aortic infection' and 'surgical management of infected thoracic aortic aneurysms'. Prominent publications from 1995 till present (2021) were analysed to achieve a deeper understanding of thoracic aorta infection and inflammation, and the information was then collated to form this review. RESULTS: The literature review revealed that infectious causes are more prominent than non-infectious causes, with Gram positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus, Enterococcus and Streptococcus accounting for approximately 60% of the infections. The authors also noted that Staphylococcus Aureus was associated with poorer outcomes. Key diagnostic tools include MRI and multi-slice CT imaging, which are useful imaging modalities in defining the extent of the disease thus allowing for planning surgical intervention. Surgical intervention itself is extremely multifaceted and the rarity of the condition means no large-scale comparative research between all the management options exists. Until more large-scale comparative data becomes available to guide treatment, the optimal approach must be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the benefits and drawback of each treatment option. CONCLUSION: A high index of suspicion and a comprehensive history is required to effectively diagnose and manage infection and inflammation of the thoracic aorta. Differentiating between infectious and inflammatory cases is crucial for management planning, as infectious causes typically require antibiotics and surgical intervention. Over the years, the post treatment results have shown significant improvement due to earlier diagnosis, advancement in surgical options and increasingly specific microbial therapy.

Neurology and neuropsychiatry of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the early literature reveals frequent CNS manifestations and key emerging narratives.

There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations.We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence.13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high.Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic's early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.