Prognostic Value of Qualitative and Quantitative Stress CMR in Patients With Known or Suspected CAD.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) may have more accuracy than qualitative CMR in coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis. However, the prognostic value of quantitative and qualitative CMR has not been compared systematically. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the utility of qualitative and quantitative stress CMR in the prognosis of patients with known or suspected CAD. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed through Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline. Studies that used qualitative vasodilator CMR or quantitative CMR assessments to compare the prognosis of patients with positive and negative CMR results were extracted. A meta-analysis was then performed to assess: 1) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and coronary revascularization; and 2) cardiac hard events defined as the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal MI. RESULTS: Forty-one studies with 38,030 patients were included in this systematic review. MACE occurred significantly more in patients with positive qualitative (HR: 3.86; 95% CI: 3.28-4.54) and quantitative (HR: 4.60; 95% CI: 1.60-13.21) CMR assessments. There was no significant difference between qualitative and quantitative CMR assessments in predicting MACE (P = 0.75). In studies with qualitative CMR assessment, cardiac hard events (OR: 7.21; 95% CI: 4.99-10.41), cardiac death (OR: 5.63; 95% CI: 2.46-12.92), nonfatal MI (OR: 7.46; 95% CI: 3.49-15.96), coronary revascularization (OR: 6.34; 95% CI: 3.42-1.75), and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.12-2.47) were higher in patients with positive CMR. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of myocardial ischemia on CMR is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with known or suspected CAD. Both qualitative and quantitative stress CMR assessments are helpful tools for predicting clinical outcomes.

Clinical decision rules in predicting computed tomography scan findings and need for neurosurgical intervention in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we will compare the diagnostic values of head CT decision rules in predicting the findings of CT scans in a prospective multicenter study in university emergency departments in Iran. METHODS: The primary outcome was any traumatic lesion findings in brain CT scans, and the secondary outcomes were death, the need for mechanical ventilation, and neurosurgical intervention. Decision rules including the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), New Orleans Criteria (NOC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS), and Neurotraumatology Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (NCWFNS) were compared for the main outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 434 mild TBI patients were enrolled in the study. The NCWFNS had the highest sensitivity (91.14%) and the lowest specificity (39.42%) for predicting abnormal finding in CT scan compared to other models. While the NICE obtained the lowest sensitivity (79.75%), it was associated with the highest specificity (66.67%). All model performances were improved when administered to predict neurosurgical intervention among patients with GCS 13-15. NEXUS (AUC 0.862, 95% CI 0.799-0.924) and NCWFNS (AUC 0.813, 95% CI 0.723-0.903) had the best performance among all evaluated models. CONCLUSION: The NCWFNS and the NEXUS decision rules performed better than the CCHR and NICE guidelines for predicting any lesion in the CT imaging and neurosurgical intervention among patients with mTBI with GCS 13-15. For a subset of mTBI patients with GCS 15, the NOC criteria have higher sensitivity for abnormal CT imaging, but lower specificity and more requested CTs.

HEART versus GRACE Score in Predicting the Outcomes of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Several scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcomes of patients with ischemic heart disease. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and History, ECG, Age, Risk Factors, and Troponin (HEART) scores are two of the more widely used risk prediction tools in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the value of GRACE and HEART scores in the outcome prediction of ACS patient. Method: The online databases of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were search until September 2022 for articles directly comparing GRACE and HEART scores value in prediction of outcome in patients with ACS. GRACE score cut-offs were categorized into two groups of less than and equal to 100 and more than 100, and HEART score cut-offs were categorized into three groups of less than 4, equal to 4, and more than 4. Investigated outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), acute myocardial infraction (AMI) and all-cause mortality. Results: 25 articles were included. The sensitivity and specificity of the GRACE score for prediction of MACE were 0.96 and 0.26 for cut-offs of ≤ 100, and 0.58 and 0.69 for cut-offs of >100, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the HEART score for prediction of MACE were 0.99 and 0.16 for cut-offs less than 4, 0.93 and 0.47 for equal to 4, and 0.77 and 0.78 for cut-offs greater than 4. GRACE score was shown to be predictive of AMI with sensitivity and specificity of 0.95 and 0.29, respectively. The analysis for the value of HEART score in the prediction of AMI a sensitivity and specificity of 0.94 and 0.48, respectively. The risk scores were not found to be suitable predictors of all-cause mortality. Conclusion: The results demonstrated the low specificity of GRACE and HEART scores in predicting the MACE, AMI and all-cause mortality, irrespective of the utilized cut-off. Considering the acceptable sensitivity of two scores in predicting the MACE and AMI, these scores were more suitable to be used as a rule-out tool for identification of ACS patients with low risk of developing adverse outcomes.

Acute Necrotizing Encephalopathy in Adult Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare neurological disorder that is often associated with viral infections. Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a few COVID-19-associated ANE cases have been reported. Since very little is known about ANE, the present study aimed to determine the clinical, biochemical, and radiological characteristics of affected patients. METHODS: A search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published up to August 30, 2022 using relevant keywords. Case reports and series in the English language that reported ANE in adult patients with COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were included in this study. Data on the demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of patients were extracted and analyzed using the SPSS software (version 26). RESULTS: The study included 30 patients (18 males) with COVID-19 and ANE who were aged 49.87±18.68 years (mean±standard deviation). Fever was the most-prevalent symptom at presentation (66.7%). Elevated C-reactive protein was observed in the laboratory assessments of 13 patients. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were the most-common radiological modalities used for brain assessments. The most commonly prescribed medications were methylprednisolone (30%) and remdesivir (26.7%). Sixteen patients died prior to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of COVID-19-associated ANE requires a thorough knowledge of the disease. Since the clinical presentations of ANE are neither sensitive nor specific, further laboratory and brain radiological evaluations will be needed to confirm the diagnosis. The suspicion of ANE should be raised among patients with COVID-19 who present with progressive neurological symptoms.

Prognostic Value of The Leuko-Glycemic Index in Acute Myocardial Infarction; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: In recent years, studies have provided evidence on the prognostic value of the leuko-glycemic index (LGI) in acute myocardial infarction (MI), but there is a lack of consensus. In addition, various reported cut-offs for LGI have raised concern regarding its clinical applicability. So, to conclude, through this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate all available evidence on the prognostic value of LGI in acute MI. Methods: Two independent researchers summarized records available in the four main databases of Medline (Via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science until 15 Sep 2022. Articles studying the prognostic value of the LGI in acute MI were included. Finally, sensitivity, specificity, prognostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve (AUC) for LGI were analyzed and reported. Results: Eleven articles were included (3701 patients, 72.1% male). Based on the analyses, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for LGI in prediction of mortality following acute MI were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.80), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.84), and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.78), respectively. Positive and negative post-test probability of LGI in prediction of mortality were 21% and 5%, respectively. AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for LGI in prediction of major cardiac complications after acute MI were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.84), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.92), and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.84), respectively. Also, the Positive and negative post-test probability of LGI in this regard were 59% and 13%, respectively. Conclusion: Although the results demonstrated that the LGI could predict mortality and acute cardiac complication after MI, the low post-test probability of LGI in risk stratification of patients raises questions regarding its applicability. Nevertheless, as most of the available studies have been conducted in the Latino/Hispanic population, further evidence is warranted to generalize the validity of this tool to other racial populations.

Can metformin use reduce the risk of stroke in diabetic patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Stroke and cardiovascular diseases are major causes of death and disability, especially among diabetic patients. Some studies have shown that metformin has been effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effect of metformin on stroke in type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from their inception till 1st July 2022. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) and cohort studies were included. Two independent researchers screened the records, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Findings were reported as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA 17.0 software package. RESULTS: Analysis of 21 included studies with 1,392,809 patients demonstrated that metformin monotherapy was effective in reducing stroke risk in both RCTs (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.87 p = 0.004) and cohort studies (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81, p < 0.0001). However, combined administration of metformin with other antihyperglycemic agents had no significant effect on stroke risk reduction in either the RCTs (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.22 p = 0.558) or the cohort studies (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.59, 1.06, p = 0.122). CONCLUSION: Low to moderate level of evidence in RCTs showed that metformin monotherapy could reduce stroke risk in type 2 diabetic patients. However, the preventive effect of metformin in stroke was not observed in patients who received a combination of metformin plus other hypoglycemic agents.

Prevalence and Mortality of Post-traumatic Acute Kidney Injury in Children; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: Numerous studies on acute kidney injury (AKI) following trauma have been performed, and acceptable findings have been reported in the adult population. The present meta-analysis summarizes the studies performed on the pediatric population to evaluate the prevalence of AKI following trauma in this population. Method: The Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Sciences databases were searched for articles published until the July, 31, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened observational studies performed on children with physical trauma and AKI related to it. The interested outcomes were the prevalence and mortality of trauma-related AKI in traumatized children. Results: Data of 9 articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The prevalence of trauma-related AKI varied between 0% and 30.30% among included studies. Pooled analysis showed that the prevalence of trauma-related AKI was 9.86% (95% CI: 8.02 to 11.84%). The prevalence of AKI after exertional rhabdomyolysis, direct physical trauma, and earthquake related injuries was 0%, 12.64% and 24.60%, respectively. There was a significant relationship between the prevalence of AKI and trauma etiology (p = 0.038). Moreover, the occurrence of AKI in children with trauma was associated with an increased risk of mortality (OR = 5.55; 95% CI: 2.14 to 13.93). Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that 9.86% of children develop AKI following trauma, which may increase their risk of death by about 5.5 times. Nevertheless, since none of the studies had adjusted their analyzes for potential confounders, caution should be exercised in interpreting the relationship between trauma-related AKI and mortality.