Effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level and structural changes following myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are anti-hyperglycemic drugs and have been proven to have cardiovascular protective effects for patients with heart failure regardless of their diabetes status. However, the benefit of SGLT2i following myocardial infarction (MI) remains incompletely established. This review aimed to investigate the impact of SGLT2i on NT-proBNP levels and structural changes post-MI. METHOD: Medline, ClinicalTrial.gov, Scopus, and Directory of open-access journals were searched to retrieve the relevant articles. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials that assessed NT-proBNP and cardiac structural changes in patients who received SGLT2i compared to placebo following MI. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULT: Four studies were included in this review, including patients with and without diabetes. While two studies showed no marked decrease from the baseline in NT-proBNP levels between the SGLT2i group and the control group, two studies reported a substantial reduction. The meta-analysis included three of these studies, with a total of 238 participants. The meta-analysis did not find a statistically significant drop in NT-proBNP levels post-MI in the SGLT2 inhibitors group compared to placebo (pooled SMD = 0.16, 95% CI 0.57-0.26, P 0.45). Furthermore, different echocardiographic parameters were reported in the included trials, yet no meta-analysis could be conducted to assess the influence of SGLT2i on cardiac remodeling post-MI. CONCLUSION: SGLT2i did not result in a statistically significant reduction of NT-proBNP level subsequent to myocardial infarction. A knowledge gap exists regarding the impact of these agents on cardiac remodeling post-MI. Future high-quality clinical trials are needed to provide more robust evidence.

Procalcitonin as a Tool to Antimicrobial Stewardship in COVID-19 Patients with Superimposed Bacterial Infections: A Systematic Review.

Abstract: Procalcitonin is an inflammatory marker that had shown marked potential as an antimicrobial stewardship tool for administering antibiotics when needed in patients with pneumonia as it raises concurrently with other inflammatory markers, yet no systematic review has assessed its potential in COVID-19 patients. This systematic review aimed to assess the potential appropriateness of procalcitonin as an antimicrobial stewardship tool in COVID-19 patients with superimposed bacterial and non-bacterial infections. All study designs published after 2019 were included in this systematic review. We included all studies that had reported procalcitonin levels in COVID-19 patients with suspected superimposed secondary infection(s). We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Directory for Open Access Journal from April 2022 to May 2022 and retrieved all related articles for screening with no restrictions on language. We conducted risk of bias assessment according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria for cohort and case-control studies. Results were presented according to procalcitonin cut-off values, gold standard test used to confirm infection, and overall study conclusion(s), among other variables. This systematic review included 18 articles with 7196 patients in 8 countries. Despite different cut-off values of procalcitonin used, thirteen studies had indicated the appropriateness of using procalcitonin as antimicrobial stewardship tool in COVID-19 patients. We urge physicians to take this into account when treating COVID-19 patients suspected of superimposed infections and we look forward to further studies with standardized procalcitonin cut-off values that may provide appropriate quantitative data that can contribute to clinical guidelines. Registration PROSPERO: CRD42022315013.

Influential Factors for Selecting a Plastic Surgeon: A National Survey in Saudi Arabia.

Knowing what attracts cosmetic patients to a specific surgeon can help current cosmetic surgeons and aspiring ones improve themselves and better market their practice. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the influential factors when selecting an aesthetic surgeon for a cosmetic procedure in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, nationwide study targeting the public from all regions of Saudi Arabia. The study was conducted between September 21 and October 29, 2021. The self-structured electronic survey was based on previously published studies and was revised by two academic plastic surgeons. Results: This study included a total of 7190 participants from all regions of Saudi Arabia. The most influential factor for choosing an aesthetic surgeon was the surgeon's qualifications (39.9%), followed by friends and relatives' advice (24%) and hospital/clinic environment (10.2%), while the number of social media followers was the least favorable factor (0.8%). Additionally, the most preferred aesthetic surgeon was a surgeon with international board certification (mean score, 4.17). Conclusions: This study showed that the most common factor for choosing an aesthetic surgeon was the surgeons' qualifications. Thus, Saudi aesthetic surgeons and aspiring Saudi aesthetic surgeons must focus on obtaining high qualifications to attract more patients. Furthermore, an internationally board-certified surgeon is the most preferred surgeon for Saudi Arabian patients; thus, traveling abroad to world-renowned institutions is recommended.

Do Our Colleagues Accurately Know What We Do?

INTRODUCTION: Plastic surgery is a unique field' and its scope is beyond a specific demographic group or anatomic part. The poor understanding and misconception about plastic surgeons' scope of practice has been well-established among the public, especially in Saudi Arabia; but the question is, do healthcare physicians share the same misconception? This study aims to answer this question. METHODS: This study was conducted between September 11, 2021 and November 1, 2021. This is a cross-sectional, survey-based study utilizing a self-structured questionnaire targeting physicians in Saudi Arabia. RESULTS: A total of 261 medical and surgical physicians participated in this study. Nearly 45% of them demonstrated a poor understanding of plastic surgery and its scope of practice, whereas only 16.1% were sufficiently knowledgeable. Male physicians were more likely to understand the field of plastic surgery when compared with female physicians. More than 80% of the physicians knew that cosmetic operations are done by plastic surgeons, whereas 50% or less knew that reconstructive operations are conducted by plastic surgeons. CONCLUSION: This study shows that 44.1% of the participating physicians demonstrate poor knowledge regarding plastic surgery as a field, in addition to a lack of understanding about the scope of practice of plastic surgeons. We recommend enhancing promotional efforts that raise awareness about the nature of plastic surgery as a specialty among healthcare physicians.

Satisfaction of Saudi Board Plastic Surgery Residents with the Training Program: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: It is well established in the literature that the satisfaction of trainees correlates with higher productivity and efficiency during training years. The satisfaction rate of Saudi Board of Plastic Surgery trainees has not been investigated since its establishment in 2001. Therefore, we aimed to measure the satisfaction rate of local trainees and detail the predictors of satisfaction. METHODS: This study was conducted on September 9-13, 2021. The study is a cross-sectional, nation-wide study utilizing a self-structured questionnaire targeting all plastic surgery residents in Saudi Arabia. IRB approval and approval from the governing body of residency programs in Saudi Arabia were obtained. RESULTS: The study included 100% of western region residents (N = 9) and 72.7% of central region residents (N = 24), yielding a total of 33 participants with 78.6% response rate. Of all the residents, only 39.4% were satisfied with their training in the Saudi Board of Plastic Surgery program, 45.5% were neutral regarding their opinion, and 15.2% expressed their dissatisfaction with the program. The area most in need of improvement was mentorship (30.3%), followed by the quality of teaching (12.1%) and workplace climate (12.1%), whereas the least was administrative components (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The mild level of dissatisfaction toward the local training in plastic surgery should alarm the governing body in the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties and the program directors to take certain interventions toward the improvement of local training. Considering the areas most in need of improvement is necessary to achieve a suitable training environment for the residents.