The American journal of cardiology
-
Review Retraction Of Publication
REMOVED: The Cardiovascular Physical Examination - Is It Still Relevant?
Advances in technology have reshaped the practice of medicine. These changes have greatly benefited our patients. However, in the setting of these advances, the importance of basic clinical tools is more pertinent than ever. ⋯ We aim to investigate current competency and proficiency, proposals for change in teaching curriculums, and the relationship with technology such as hand-held echocardiography. A skillful exam provides both emotional and intellectual satisfaction. It may be a lost art but it is well worth the effort to restore.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-Analysis of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo-surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve.
This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) in failed bioprosthetic aortic valves. We conducted a comprehensive review of previous publications of all relevant studies through August 2020. Twelve observational studies were included with a total of 8,430 patients, and a median-weighted follow-up period of 1.74 years. ⋯ The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly higher post-implantation in the ViV-TAVI group when compared with the Redo-SAVR arm (Mean difference 3.92; 95% CI 1.97 to 5.88, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, compared with Redo-SAVR, ViV-TAVI is associated with a similar risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage. However, the rate of major bleeding, stroke, procedural mortality and 30-day mortality were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVI group when compared with Redo-SAVR.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes in Patients With and Without Cardiac Injury and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19).
Current evidence is limited to small studies describing the association between cardiac injury and outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To address this, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies in COVID-19 patients to evaluate the association between cardiac injury and all-cause mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury and coagulopathy. Further, studies comparing cardiac biomarker levels in survivors versus nonsurvivors were included. ⋯ However, cardiac injury was not associated with increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (RR:3.22; 95% CI:0.72 to 14.47; I2 = 73%) or acute kidney injury (RR: 11.52, 95% CI:0.03 to 4,159.80; I2 = 0%). The levels of hs-cTnI (MD:34.54 pg/ml;95% CI: 24.67 to 44.40 pg/ml; I2 = 88%), myoglobin (MD:186.81 ng/ml; 95% CI: 121.52 to 252.10 ng/ml; I2 = 88%), NT-pro BNP (MD:1183.55 pg/ml; 95% CI: 520.19 to 1846.91 pg/ml: I2 = 96%) and CK-MB (MD:2.49 ng/ml;95% CI: 1.86 to 3.12 ng/ml; I2 = 90%) were significantly elevated in nonsurvivors compared with survivors with COVID-19 infection. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that cardiac injury is associated with higher mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and coagulopathy in patients with COVID-19.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-analysis Evaluating the Utility of Colchicine in Secondary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease.
Colchicine has shown potential therapeutic benefits in cardiovascular conditions owing to its broad anti-inflammatory properties. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A systematical search in electronic databases of PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were carried out to identify eligible studies. ⋯ Colchicine treatment also decreased the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98), coronary revascularization (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.89) and stroke (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81) in CAD patients, but with no impact on cardiovascular mortality. In addition, the rates of common adverse events were generally similar between colchicine and control groups, including noncardiovascular deaths (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.40) and gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22). In conclusion, the results of our meta-analysis demonstrated that colchicine treatment may reduce the risk of future cardiovascular events in CAD patients.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-analysis of Effect of Statins in Patients with COVID-19.