The impact of Libman-sacks endocarditis on inpatient outcomes with systemic lupus erythematosus: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The existing literature offers limited insights into the influence of Libman-Sacks Endocarditis (LSE) on inpatient outcomes in individuals with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). This study aimed to explore the characteristics and prognosis of SLE patients with LSE and the impact of LSE in patients with SLE on inpatient outcomes including inpatient mortality, length of stay, acute heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA). METHODS: This study included adult patients who were hospitalized with SLE between the years 2019 and 2020, using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The total number of patients with a diagnosis of SLE in the years 2019 and 2020 in the NIS database was 150,411. Of those, 349 had a diagnosis of LSE. The study population was divided into two groups: one group with SLE and LSE, and another group with SLE but without LSE. RESULTS: Caucasians made up 54.9% of the patients with a diagnosis of SLE in our patient population, while African Americans made up 26.9% and the Hispanics accounted for 12.2%. Of patients with LSE, Caucasians and African Americans represented 42.9% each. Patients with a diagnosis of LSE had a higher inpatient mortality than those with SLE without LSE (aOR: 9.74 CI 1.12-84.79, p 0.04). Patients with SLE with LSE were more likely to have acute heart failure than those without LSE, although this was not statistically significant (aOR 1.18 CI 0.13-11.07, p 0.88). Similarly, patients with SLE with LSE were more likely to have atrial fibrillation than those without LSE (aOR 4.45 CI: 0.77-25.57, p 0.10). CVAs were significantly higher in SLE patients with LSE than those without LSE (aOR 141.43 CI 16.59-1205.52, p < .01). DISCUSSION: Patients who develop LSE were found to have significantly higher risks of inpatient mortality and cerebrovascular accidents. Early and precise detection of LSE in such patients may ensure timely intervention and prevention of the associated adverse outcomes. Further studies may attempt to develop screening methods for detection of LSE to effectively reduce morbidity and mortality associated with SLE.

Comparison of Artificial Intelligence With Other Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate for Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome. RESULTS: A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulant in Addition to Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis of 53,869 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Significant progress has been made in the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the past few decades. However, the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in post-ACS prophylactic therapy remains unknown. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs plus antiplatelet treatment (APT) after ACS. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials comparing DOACs plus APT with APT alone after ACS. The primary efficacy end points were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and stroke and systemic embolization (SSE). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. The random-effects model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs. RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 53,869 patients were identified, with 33,011 (61.2%) in the DOACs plus APT group and 20,858 (38.8%) in the APT alone group. The use of DOACs did not decrease the risk of cardiovascular death (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01; P = 0.08; I2 = 0%) or myocardial infarction (RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = 0.10; I2 = 6%). However, the risk of SSE was significantly lower in patients who received DOACs plus APT compared with APT alone (RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = 0.008). Moreover, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the DOACs plus APT group (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-98; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, the risk of major bleeding was significantly higher in patients treated with DOACs plus APT compared with APT alone (RR = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.96-3.26; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), as was the risk of nonmajor bleeding (RR = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.51-3.41; P < 0.01). IMPLICATIONS: DOACs plus APT for the prevention of left ventricular thrombus in patients with ACS were associated with a lower risk of SSE and all-cause mortality but increased the risk of major and nonmajor bleeding. The benefits and risks of this approach should be weighed based on a patient's individual clinical characteristics.

Monthly variations in acute coronary syndromes outcomes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease, particularly acute coronary syndromes (ACS), is the leading cause of death in the United States. Minor fluctuations in hospital admissions for different conditions, including ACS, can be seen throughout the year. This study focuses on the impact of admission month on outcomes of acute coronary syndromes during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of patients hospitalized with ACS from the National Inpatient Sample, during the years 2020 (n = 779,895) and 2019 (n = 935,975). We compared the monthly outcomes for every month to the outcomes for the month of January of that same year. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and time from admission to PCI. RESULTS: Inpatient mortality for patients admitted with STEMI was significantly higher for admissions in the months of April, October and December of 2020 than January of that same year. For patients admitted with NSTEMI or UA, inpatient mortality was higher for admissions in April and December 2020 when compared to admissions in January 2020. Inpatient mortality for patients with STEMI, NSTEMI and UA was not different based on admission month in the year 2019. CONCLUSION: The month of admission significantly affected outcomes for patients admitted with ACS during the COVID-19 pandemic, with higher inpatient mortality and longer time from admission to PCI for certain months in 2020. Further studies should investigate disparities in monthly ACS outcomes for the year 2021 and onward, now that COVID-19 infections have been steadily declining.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

During the pandemic, health care resources were primarily focused on treating COVID-19 infections and its related complications, with various Clinical units were converted to COVID-19 units, This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical course of patients who had developed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) including ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this large nationwide observational study utilizing National Inpatient Sample 2019 and 2020.The primary outcomes of our study were in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), total hospital charges and time from admission to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Using the National Inpatient Sample 2020 database we found 32,355,827 hospitalizations in 2020 and 521,484 of which had a primary diagnosis of STEMI that met our criteria. Patients with COVID-19 infection were similar in mean age, more likely to be men, were treated in the same hospital settings as those without COVID-19 and had higher rates of diabetes with chronic complications. These patients had a similar prevalence of traditional coronary artery disease risk factors including hypertension, peripheral vascular disease and obesity. There was higher inpatient mortality (adjusted odds ratios 3.10; 95% CI, 2.40-4.02; P < 0.01) and LOS (95% CI 1.07-2.25; P < 0.01) in STEMI patient with concurrent COVID-19 infection. The average time from admission to PCI was significantly higher among unstable angina (UA) and None ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in patients with a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection compared to patients without: 0.45 days (95% CI: .155-758; P < 0.01). The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the treatment of patients with ACS, resulting in increased inpatient mortality, higher costs, and longer lengths of stay. During the pandemic, for patients with UA and NSTEMI the time from admission to PCI was significantly longer in patients with a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to patients without. When comparing ACS outcomes between pre-pandemic to pandemic periods (2019 versus 2020), the 2020 data showed higher mortality, higher hospital costs, and a decrease in LOS. Finally, the time from admission to PCI was longer for UA and NSTEMI in 2020 but not for patients with STEMI.

Outcomes of Heart Failure Related Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND:  The incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) in the United States has steadily increased in the past few decades. Similarly, the United States has experienced an increase in HF-related hospitalizations which has added to the burden of a resource-stretched healthcare system. With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, hospitalizations due to the COVID-19 infection sky-rocketed further exacerbating the burden on both patient health and the healthcare system. The focus of this study is to examine how a secondary COVID-19 diagnosis affects the outcome of HF patients, and how a pre-existing diagnosis of heart failure impacts the outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients hospitalized with heart failure and COVID-19 infection in the United States in the years 2019 and 2020. Analysis was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database of the Healthcare Utilization Project (HCUP). The total number of patients included in this study from the NIS database 2020 was 94,745. Of those, 93,798 had heart failure without a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19; 947 had heart failure along with a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19. The primary outcome of our study was in-hospital mortality, length of stay, total hospital charges and time from admission to right heart catheterization, which were compared between the two cohorts.  Results: Our main study findings are that mortality in HF patients with secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was not statistically different compared to those who were without a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19. Our study findings also showed that length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs in HF patients who had a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 were not statistically different compared to those who did not have the secondary diagnosis. Time from admission to right heart catheterization (RHC) in HF patients who had a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 was shorter in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not in heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared to those without secondary diagnoses of COVID-19. Finally, when evaluating hospital outcomes for patients admitted with COVID-19 infection, we found that inpatient mortality increased significantly when they had a pre-existing diagnosis of heart failure. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted hospitalization outcomes for patients admitted with heart failure. The time from admission to right heart catheterization was significantly shorter in patients admitted with heart failure reduced ejection fraction who also had a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. When evaluating hospital outcomes for patients admitted with COVID-19 infection, we found that inpatient mortality increased significantly when they had a pre-existing diagnosis of heart failure. Length of hospital stay and hospital charges also were higher for patients with COVID-19 infection who had pre-existing heart failure. Further studies should focus not just on how medical comorbidities like COVID-19 infection, affect outcomes of heart failure but also on how overall strains on the healthcare system, such as pandemics, may affect the management of conditions such as heart failure.