Disparities in Use of Virtual Primary Care During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of virtual health care. However, certain factors may disparately affect some patients' utilization of virtual care. Associations between age, racial categories (White or Black), and socioeconomic disadvantage were evaluated during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study included adult patients with virtual or in-person primary care encounters at a large, midwestern hospital system with widespread urban and suburban offices between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. Virtual visits included synchronous video and telephone visits and asynchronous patient portal E-visits. Chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic analysis assessed the associations between ages and racial categories, and area deprivation index with the use of virtual versus in-person primary care. Results: Of 72,153 patient encounters, 43.0% were virtual visits, 54.6% were White patients, and 45.4% were Black. Across equivalent age ranges, black patients were slightly less likely to utilize virtual care than similarly aged White patients, but not consistently across virtual modalities. Women were more likely to use virtual care across all modalities, and individuals >65 years were more likely to use telephone visits and less likely to use video and E-visits, regardless of race. Patients residing in areas with the greatest socioeconomic advantage were more likely to utilize video and E-visits. Conclusions: Differential patterns of utilization emerged across racial categories and age ranges, suggesting that racial disparities are exacerbated depending upon patient age and mode of utilization.

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Older Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of ischemic heart disease in older patients, there is a substantial lack of evidence to guide clinical decision-making in this population. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials comparing DES with BMS in patients ≥70 years-old. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included different ischemic and bleeding events. Subgroup analyses for dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration were conducted. RESULTS: We included 7 trials with a total of 5449 patients. The use of DES compared with BMS was associated with a significant reduction in MACE (odds ratio [OR]:0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.62-0.93; P = 0.007) with no increased risk of bleeding events (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89-1.27; P = 0.48). However, longer duration of DAPT (>6 months) for the DES group increased bleeding events (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.05-2.20; P = 0.03). In contrast, shorter DAPT showed persistent efficacy in reducing MACE in DES-treated patients with no increased bleeding events (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60-0.87; P < 0.01 and OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84-1.22; P = 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients who had undergone PCI, DES showed superior efficacy in reducing MACE with no increased risk of bleeding compared with BMS. Persistent MACE reduction was evident with shorter DAPT durations in DES-treated patients. SUMMARY: This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials demonstrated that drug-eluting stents were associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with no increased risk of bleeding compared with bare-metal stents. The risk of bleeding was high with longer dual antiplatelet therapy duration for patients who underwent DES placement. However, short duration of dual antiplatelet therapy substantially reduced major adverse cardiovascular events with no increased bleeding risk.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion for cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are among the most common recipients of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. However, whether restrictive RBC transfusion strategies for cardiac surgery achieve a similar clinical outcome in comparison with liberal strategies remains unclear. We searched electronic databases from inception to December 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and weighted-mean difference (MD) using a random-effects model. We included 9 RCTs with a total of 9005 patients. There was no significant difference in mortality between groups [RR 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.45; P = 0.86]. In addition, there were no significant differences between groups in the clinical outcomes of infections (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94-1.26; P = 0.26), stroke (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.72-1.35; P = 0.91), respiratory morbidity (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.24; P = 0.58), renal morbidity (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94-1.09; P = 0.68), myocardial infarction (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.80-1.24; P = 0.99), cardiac arrhythmia (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.88-1.26; P = 0.56), gastrointestinal morbidity (RR 1.93; 95% CI 0.81-4.63; P = 0.14), or reoperation (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.67-1.20; P = 0.46). There was a significant difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (h) (MD 4.29; 95% CI 2.19-6.39, P < 0.01) favoring the liberal group. However, there was no significant difference in the hospital length of stay (days) (MD 0.15; 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.48; P = 0.38). In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that restrictive strategies for RBC transfusion are as safe as liberal strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with regards to short-term clinical outcomes.