Clinical Outcomes in Hypertensive Emergency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background To study the prevalence and types of hypertension-mediated organ damage and the prognosis of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypertensive emergencies. Methods and Results PubMed was queried from inception through November 30, 2021. Studies were included if they reported the prevalence or prognosis of hypertensive emergencies in patients presenting to the ED. Studies reporting data on hypertensive emergencies in other departments were excluded. The extracted data were arcsine transformed and pooled using a random-effects model. Fifteen studies (n=4370 patients) were included. Pooled analysis demonstrates that the prevalence of hypertensive emergencies was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.40%-0.70%) in all patients presenting to ED and 35.9% (95% CI, 26.7%-45.5%) among patients presenting in ED with hypertensive crisis. Ischemic stroke (28.1% [95% CI, 18.7%-38.6%]) was the most prevalent hypertension-mediated organ damage, followed by pulmonary edema/acute heart failure (24.1% [95% CI, 19.0%-29.7%]), hemorrhagic stroke (14.6% [95% CI, 9.9%-20.0%]), acute coronary syndrome (10.8% [95% CI, 7.3%-14.8%]), renal failure (8.0% [95% CI, 2.9%-15.5%]), subarachnoid hemorrhage (6.9% [95% CI, 3.9%-10.7%]), encephalopathy (6.1% [95% CI, 1.9%-12.4%]), and the least prevalent was aortic dissection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.8%]). Prevalence of in-hospital mortality among patients with hypertensive emergency was 9.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-24.6%). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a pattern of hypertension-mediated organ damage primarily affecting the brain and heart, substantial cardiovascular renal morbidity and mortality, as well as subsequent hospitalization in patients with hypertensive emergencies presenting to the ED.

An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of Ischemic Versus Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy and Trajectory of Decongestion in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Data are limited regarding the impact of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or non-ICM (NICM) on the trajectory of in-hospital decongestion among patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Therefore, we aimed to assess the course of decongestion among patients admitted for ADHF by history of ICM and NICM. Patients included in the DOSE (Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure), ROSE (ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial), and Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome (CARRESS-HF) trials of patients with ADHF were categorized into ICM and NICM based on history. Among 762 patients included in our meta-analysis, 433 (56.8%) had a history of ICM. Patients with ICM were older (70.8 vs 63.9 years; p ≤0.001) and had higher rates of co-morbidities. After covariate adjustment, there was no significant differences between NICM and ICM regarding net fluid loss (4,952 vs 4,384 ml, p = 0.81) or mean change in serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (-2,162 vs -1,809 pg/ml, p = 0.092). Mean change in weight showed modest improvement in favor of patients with NICM, but this did not meet statistical significance (-8.24 vs -7.70 pounds, p = 0.068). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in the risk of 60-day composite all-cause mortality or hospitalization for HF among those with ICM versus NICM. Among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, NICM was associated with higher scoring on global sense of well-being (global visual analog scale; +25.5 vs +19.1, p = 0.023) and improvement in serum creatinine (-0.031 mg/100 ml vs +0.042 mg/100 ml, p = 0.009) at 72 hours. Among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, NICM was associated with decreased scoring on global visual analog scale at 72 hours (+15.7 vs +21.2, p = 0.049). In conclusion, more than half of the patients admitted for ADHF had ICM. History of ICM was not independently associated with a difference in course of decongestion, self-assessment of well-being and dyspnea, or short-term clinical outcomes.

Effect of vitamin D on postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency has been identified as a risk factor for postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality leading to not only prolonged hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, but increased risk of stroke, heart failure, dementia, and long-term atrial fibrillation. This analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in preventing POAF in patients undergoing CABG. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and SCOPUS from inception to June 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcome of interest was the incidence of POAF. Secondarily, we analyzed the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, cardiac arrest, cardiac tamponade, and blood transfusion. Results were pooled using a random-effect model. Three RCTs consisting of 448 patients were included. RESULTS: Our results suggest that vitamin D significantly reduced the incidence of POAF (RR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.40, 0.90; p = 0.01; I2 = 8 %). It was also observed that vitamin D significantly reduced the duration of ICU stay (WMD: -1.639; 95 % CI: -1.857, -1.420; p < 0.00001). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay (WMD: -0.85; 95 % CI: -2.14, 0.43; p = 0.19; I2 = 87 %) was also reduced, however, the result was not significant. CONCLUSION: Our pooled analysis suggests that vitamin D prevents POAF. Future large-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm our results.

Association of Electronic Cigarette Exposure on Cardiovascular Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Despite the growing use of electronic cigarettes (EC) in the Unites States, particularly among young people, and their perceived safety, current evidence suggests that EC usage may cause adverse clinical cardiovascular effects. Therefore, we aim to pool all studies evaluating the association of EC exposure with cardiovascular health. Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus were searched for studies from January 1, 2006 until December 31, 2022. Randomized and observational studies reporting cardiovascular outcomes, hemodynamic parameters, and biomarkers of platelet physiology, before and after acute or chronic EC exposure were pooled using a random-effects model. Overall, 27 studies (n = 863) were included. Heart rate increased significantly after acute EC exposure (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.76 bpm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 1.03; P < 0.00001; I2 = 92%). Significant increases in systolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.28 mmHg; 95% CI, 0.06, 0.51; P = 0.01; I2 = 94%), diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.38 mmHg; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.60; P = 0.0006; I2 = 90%), and PWV (WMD: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.63; P = 0.003; I2 = 100%) were also observed. Augmentation index increased significantly (SMD: 0.39; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.67; P = 0.007; I2 = 90%), whereas reduction in flow-mediated dilation (WMD: -1.48; 95% CI, -2.49, -0.47; P = 0.004; I2 = 45%) was observed. Moreover, significant rise in both soluble P-selectin (WMD: 4.73; 95% CI, 0.80, 8.66; P = 0.02; I2 = 98%) and CD40L (WMD: 1.14; 95% CI, 0.41, 1.87; P = 0.002; I2 = 79%) was observed. Our results demonstrate that smoking EC is associated with a significant increase in cardiovascular hemodynamic measures and biomarkers. Our findings can aid policymakers in making informed decisions regarding the regulation of EC to ensure public safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Older Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Previous studies and meta-analyses have assessed optimal P2Y12 inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome in overall trial cohorts. However, there are insufficient data for the elderly cohort who are prone to high bleeding and ischemic events. We aimed to assess the optimal P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for older patients. METHODS: PubMed, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception through July 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched observational studies including older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) that reported study-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major bleeding events. Outcomes at the mid-term follow-up were pooled to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 12,953 older patients were included in our analysis. No significant difference was observed with MACE when all three P2Y12 inhibitors were compared with each other. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly increased the risk of major bleeding (risk ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.67) while prasugrel did not (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.57). A sensitivity analysis of only randomized controlled trials yielded similar results for both MACE and major bleeding. The P score displayed prasugrel (0.5871) as the best treatment for MACE, while clopidogrel (0.7701) was the best P2Y12 inhibitor to decrease the risk of major bleeding. Ticagrelor (0.0634) was ranked the lowest because of an increased bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference is observed between the three P2Y12 inhibitors in study-defined MACE. Ranking by p-score suggests prasugrel as the best P2Y12 inhibitor to reduce the risk of MACE while clopidogrel is a better alternative than ticagrelor in older patients with acute coronary syndrome to decrease the risk of major bleeding. Because of a lack of individual-patient data analysis and heterogeneity amongst studies, future studies representing older patients with acute coronary syndrome are required to strengthen evidence regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy in this cohort.

Is there a smoker's paradox in COVID-19?

Although it is well established that cigarette smoking is associated with morbidity and mortality in several respiratory infections, data from recent studies suggest that active smokers are underrepresented among patients with COVID-19. This has led to claims that a 'smoker's paradox' may exist in COVID-19, wherein smokers are protected from infection and severe complications of COVID-19. We aimed to review and summarise existing literature in this context. Electronic databases were searched for articles that reported prevalence of smokers among patients with COVID-19 or studied any association of smoking with outcomes among patients with COVID-19. We identified several biases and knowledge gaps which may give the false impression that smoking is protective in COVID-19. As of now, the data supporting smoker's paradox claims are limited and questionable. Plausible biologic mechanisms by which smoking might be protective in COVID-19 include an anti-inflammatory effect of nicotine, a blunted immune response in smokers (reducing the risk of a cytokine storm in COVID-19) and increased nitric oxide in the respiratory tract (which may inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 and its entry into cells). On the other hand, smoking may worsen susceptibility and prognosis in COVID-19, in a manner similar to other respiratory infections. The claims of a protective effect must be viewed with extreme caution by both the general population as well as clinicians. Further investigations into the interaction between smoking and COVID-19 are warranted to accurately assess the risk of contracting COVID-19 among smokers, and progression to mechanical ventilation or death in patients suffering from it.

Prevalence of Cardiac Risk Factors and Attitude toward Self-Risk Assessment among Cardiac Care Givers.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this survey was to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk factors and attitude toward self-risk assessment among cardiac care physicians (who did not have CVD history), at a tertiary care cardiac center in Pakistan. DESIGN: In this survey we included cardiac care givers who had a minimum of 1 year of working experience in a cardiac care center. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with self-reported history of established diagnosis of CVD were excluded. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the help of a structured questionnaire which consisted of demographic information, data regarding established CVD risk factors, self-awareness, and attitude toward CVD risk assessment. RESULTS: A total of 126 participants were interviewed, out of which 20.6% (26) were females and mean age was 36.1±7.6 years. The most prevalent CVD risk factor was family history of CVD (33.3%) followed by smoking (14.3%) and 23.8% had body mass index of ≥27.5 kg/m2. Around 23% of the participants did not know their cholesterol levels, similarly more than 74% were not aware of their high-density lipoproteins levels. More than 76% had never assessed their CVD risk and more than 37% don't know or don't have any opinion about their own CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reveals low prevalence of conventional cardiac risk factors and marginally higher tendency of modifiable risk factors, such as smoking and obesity, among the cardiac physicians. A large proportion of these cardiac physicians have not yet assessed their CVD risk.