Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and Tocilizumab in Patients With COVID-19: Single-Center Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: During the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an unfounded fervor surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and tocilizumab (TCZ); however, evidence on their efficacy and safety have been controversial. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall clinical effectiveness of HCQ and TCZ in patients with COVID-19. We hypothesize that HCQ and TCZ use in these patients will be associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the impact of HCQ and TCZ use on hard clinical outcomes during hospitalization. A total of 176 hospitalized patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis was included. Patients were divided into two comparison groups: (1) HCQ (n=144) vs no-HCQ (n=32) and (2) TCZ (n=32) vs no-TCZ (n=144). The mean age, baseline comorbidities, and other medications used during hospitalization were uniformly distributed among all the groups. Independent t tests and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to calculate mean differences and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CIs, respectively. RESULTS: The unadjusted odds ratio for patients upgraded to a higher level of care (ie, intensive care unit) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.19-5.69; P=.003) and reductions in C-reactive protein (CRP) level on day 7 of hospitalization (21% vs 56%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.55; P=.002) were significantly higher in the TCZ group compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure necessitating dialysis, or discharge from the hospital after recovery in both the HCQ and TCZ groups compared to their respective control groups. Adjusted odds ratios controlled for baseline comorbidities and medications closely followed the unadjusted estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with COVID-19, neither HCQ nor TCZ offered a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality, upgrade to intensive medical care, invasive mechanical ventilation, or acute renal failure needing dialysis. These results are similar to the recently published preliminary results of the HCQ arm of the Recovery trial, which showed no clinical benefit from the use of HCQ in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (the TCZ arm is ongoing). Double-blinded randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the impact of these drugs in larger patient samples so that data-driven guidelines can be deduced to combat this global pandemic.

Swiss Cheese Heart: A Tale of Multiple Valve Perforations.

Gerbode defect, an anomalous connection between the left ventricle and right atrium, is often congenital but can be acquired or iatrogenically formed. We present an exceedingly rare case of this defect associated with multiple valve perforation in an otherwise healthy patient with bicuspid aortic valve and endocarditis.

Dipyridamole-induced STEMI: case report and review of the literature.

Dipyridamole nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging is a safe and useful modality for assessing myocardial ischemia. It is the modality of choice for cardiac risk stratification in patients who are unable to exercise. Intravenous dipyridamole causes coronary vasodilation and may result in heterogeneity of coronary blood flow in significant coronary artery disease. Ischemic electrocardiographic changes following pharmacological stress testing are less likely to occur compared with exercise stress tests. Ischemia is more likely to be present in the form of ST depression, with ST-segment elevation being exceedingly rare. We present the case of a 73-year-old patient who developed ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction following pharmacologic stress testing.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Paradigm Shift in Physiological Pacing for Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) via His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP) offer a physiological approach to pacing by restoring normal ventricular activation. This meta-analysis compares the feasibility, outcomes, and success rates of HBP and LBBP in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular function. A systematic search identified studies comparing LBBP with HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function. Primary outcomes included QRS duration, success rates, pacing threshold, and improvement in R-wave amplitudes. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Random-effects models calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Among 382 screened articles, seven observational studies involving 1035 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 69.9 years, the mean LVEF was 59.3%, and the average follow-up duration was 8.7 months. LBBP showed higher R-wave amplitudes (MD 7.88, 95% CI 7.26 to 8.50, P < 0.0001) and lower pacing thresholds (MD -0.64, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.47, P < 0.0001) compared to HBP. LBBP had shorter procedure time (MD -17.81, 95% CI -30.44 to -5.18, P = 0.006) and reduced fluoroscopy time (MD -5.39, 95% CI -8.81 to -1.97, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in QRS duration or success rates. LBBP offers advantages over HBP, including improved electrical activation, lower pacing thresholds, and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Success rates and QRS duration reductions were comparable between LBBP and HBP. These findings support LBBP as a feasible and effective alternative to HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function.

Polypill Therapy in Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The effectiveness of polypill therapy in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disorders is still unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of polypill therapy in reducing cardiovascular risk factors. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated polypill therapy for cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. We included 18 RCTs with a total of 20,463 participants in our analysis. Pooled effect estimates were reported as Odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. Polypill therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (OR: -0.33, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.03]; P-value = 0.03), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (OR: -0.70, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.21]; P-value = 0.005), and total cholesterol level (OR: -1.25, 95% CI [-1.82, -0.68]; P-value < 0.0001). Polypill therapy also showed improved adherence (OR 2.18, 95% CI [1.47, 3.24]; P-value = 0.0001). However, there was no statistically significant benefit in the reduction of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and LDL-c levels. The use of polypill therapy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in SBP, DBP, and total cholesterol levels, as well as improved adherence. Further research is needed to determine its impact on hard clinical outcomes such as mortality and major cardiovascular events.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Prasugrel and ticagrelor are preferred over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to determine the relative merits of 1 agent over the other. Multiple databases were queried to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for major adverse cardiovascular and cerbrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A total of 27 (7 RCTs, 20 observational cohort studies) studies comprising 118,266 (prasugrel 62,716, ticagrelor 51,196) patients were included. At 30 days, prasugrel was associated with a significantly lower odds of MACCE (OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 0.85, p ≤0.0001) and mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71, p ≤0.0001). At 1 year, the overall odds of mortality favored prasugrel (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.002), but no significant interdrug difference was seen in terms of MACCE (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, p = 0.16). There was no significant difference in the odds of overall myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding events between the 2 groups on both 30-day and 1-year follow-up. A subgroup analysis of RCTs data showed no significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor in terms of any end point at all time points. In conclusion, prasugrel might have lower odds of MACCE and mortality at 30 days. However, there was no difference in the safety and efficacy end points of 2 drugs at 1 year. The observed transient prasugrel-related mortality benefits were subject to the bias of nonrandomized assignment.