Explore the vast range of titles available.

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0–25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0–156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p  < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence. During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic there was a need for rapid dissemination of clinical findings. Here, Jung, Di Santo et al. perform a systematic review and cohort study providing evidence for lower methodological quality scores and faster time to publication of clinical studies related to COVID-19 than comparable studies.

Background New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is commonly encountered in critically ill adults. Evidence evaluating the association between NOAF and patient-important outcomes in this population is conflicting. Furthermore, little is known regarding the association between NOAF and resource use or hospital costs. Methods Retrospective analysis (2011–2016) of a prospectively collected registry from two Canadian hospitals of consecutive ICU patients aged ≥ 18 years. We excluded patients with a known history of AF prior to hospital admission. Any occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was prospectively recorded by bedside nurses. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and we used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for confounders. We used a generalized linear model to evaluate contributors to total cost. Results We included 15,014 patients, and 1541 (10.3%) had NOAF during their ICU admission. While NOAF was not associated with increased odds of hospital death among the entire cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.08]), an interaction was noted between NOAF and sepsis, and the presence of both was associated with higher odds of hospital mortality (aOR 1.28 [95% CI 1.09–1.36]) than either alone. Patients with NOAF had higher total costs (cost ratio [CR] 1.09 [95% CI 1.02–1.20]). Among patients with NOAF, treatment with a rhythm-control strategy was associated with higher costs (CR 1.24 [95% CI 1.07–1.40]). Conclusions While NOAF was not associated with death or requiring discharge to long-term care among critically ill patients, it was associated with increased length of stay in ICU and increased total costs.

Electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening condition of recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in a short period of time. Percutaneous stellate ganglion blockade (SGB) is frequently used – however the efficacy is undefined. The objective of our systematic review was to determine the efficacy of SGB in reducing VA events and mortality among patients with ES. A search of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL and CENTRAL was performed on February 29, 2024 to include studies with adult patients (≥ 18 years) with ES treated with SGB. Our outcomes of interest were VA burden pre- and post-SGB, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. A total of 553 ES episodes in 542 patients from 15 observational studies were included. Treated VAs pre- and post-SGB were pooled from eight studies including 383 patients and demonstrated a decrease from 3.5 (IQR 2.25–7.25) to 0 (IQR 0–0) events ( p  = 0.008). Complete resolution after SGB occurred in 190 of 294 patients (64.6%). Despite this, in-hospital or 30-day mortality remained high occurring in 140 of 527 patients (random effects prevalence 22%). Repeat SGB for recurrent VAs was performed in 132 of 490 patients (random effects prevalence 21%). In conclusion, observational data suggests SGB may be effective in reducing VAs in ES. Definitive studies for SGB in VA management are needed.  Study protocol: PROSPERO - registration number CRD42023430031.

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The impact of beta-blocker (BB) use on patients who develop CS remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hemodynamic response profiles in patients treated with BB in the 24 h prior to the development of CS. Methods Patients with CS enrolled in the DObutamine compaREd to MIlrinone trial were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, need for cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, non-fatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite and hemodynamic response profiles derived from pulmonary artery catheters. Results Among 192 participants, 93 patients (48%) had received BB therapy. The primary outcome occurred in 47 patients (51%) in the BB group and in 52 (53%) in the no BB group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.73–1.27; P  = 0.78) throughout the in-hospital period. There were fewer early deaths in the BB group (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18–0.95; P  = 0.03). There were no differences in other individual components of the primary outcome or in hemodynamic response between the two groups throughout the remainder of the hospitalization. Conclusions BB therapy in the 24 h preceding the development of CS did not negatively influence clinical outcomes or hemodynamic parameters. On the contrary, BB use was associated with fewer deaths in the early resuscitation period, suggesting a paradoxically protective effect in patients with CS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03207165

Background Small studies have implicated plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) as a predictor of cardiovascular events; however, these findings have been inconsistent. We sought out to examine the potential role of PAI-1 as a marker for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Methods We systematically reviewed all indexed studies examining the association between PAI-1 and MACE (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident) or restenosis. EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library were searched through October 2016 to identify relevant studies, supplemented by letters to authors and review of citations. Studies reporting the results of PAI-1 antigen and/or activity levels in association with MACE in human subjects were included. Results Of 5961 articles screened, we identified 38 articles published between 1991 to 2016 that reported PAI-1 levels in 11,557 patients. In studies that examined PAI-1 antigen and activity levels, 15.1% and 29.6% of patients experienced MACE, respectively. Patients with MACE had higher PAI-1 antigen levels with a mean difference of 6.11 ng/mL (95% CI, 3.27-8.96). This finding was similar among patients with and without known coronary artery disease. Comparatively, studies that stratified by PAI-1 activity levels were not associated with MACE. In contrast, studies of coronary restenosis suggest PAI-1 antigen and activity levels are negatively associated with MACE. Conclusions Elevated plasma PAI-1 antigen levels are associated with MACE. Definitive studies are needed to ascertain if PAI-1 acts simply as a marker of risk or if it is indeed a bona fide therapeutic target.

IntroductionAngina with no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) affects millions and is frequently under-recognised because diagnostic pathways and risk tools predominantly target obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). This protocol describes shared methods for two machine-learning (ML) studies: (1) differentiating ANOCA from stable angina with obstructive CAD and (2) predicting long-term mortality among patients with ANOCA and obstructive CAD.Methods and analysisWe will develop and cross-site validate ML classification models using a multicentre retrospective cohort drawn from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry and institutional datasets from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and the University Health Network. Eligible participants are adults (≥18 years) undergoing initial cardiac catheterisation for chest pain/anginal equivalents since 1995, excluding prior revascularisation, major structural heart disease and predefined non-anginal indications. Outcomes are (1) ANOCA (0% to <50% stenosis) versus obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis) and (2) 1, 3 and 5-year mortality, modelled separately for ANOCA and obstructive CAD.Model development will use nested cross-validation with stratified k-fold inner-loop tuning and leave-one-site-out cross-validation for repeated external validation. Candidate predictors will be harmonised across sites, filtered for missingness and refined using expert/directed acyclic graph-guided selection plus Boruta and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator. Preprocessing includes appropriate encoding, missing-data imputation (multivariate imputation by chained equations) and feature scaling. Algorithms will include elastic-net logistic regression, random forest, LightGBM and multilayer perceptron models; hyperparameters will be optimised via Bayesian optimisation. Performance and threshold tuning will be reported. Explainability and subgroup fairness will be assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Final models will be deployed as a web-based clinical risk calculator.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the University of Calgary and the University Health Network (#24-5916). Analyses will use deidentified data in secure environments; only aggregate results will be reported. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences and a web-based calculator.

Coronary revascularization using imaging guidance is rapidly becoming the standard of care. Intravascular optical coherence tomography uses near-infrared light to obtain high resolution intravascular images. Standard optical coherence tomography imaging technique employs iodinated contrast dye to achieve the required blood clearance during acquisition. We sought to systematically evaluate the technical performance of saline as an alternative to iodinated contrast for intravascular optical coherence tomography assessment. We performed bench top optical coherence tomography analysis on nylon tubing with sequential contrast/saline dilutions to empirically derive adjustment coefficients. We then applied these coefficients in vivo in an established rabbit abdominal stenting model with both saline and contrast optical coherence tomography imaging. In this model, we assessed the impact of saline on both quantitative and qualitative vessel assessment. Nylon tubing assessment demonstrated a linear relationship between saline and contrast for both area and diameter. We then derived adjustment coefficients, allowing for accurate calculation of area and diameter when converting saline into both contrast and reference dimensions. In vivo studies confirmed reduced area with saline versus contrast [7.43 (5.67-8.36) mm.sup.2 versus 8.2 (6.34-9.39) mm.sup.2, p = 0.001] and diameter [3.08 mm versus 3.23 mm, p = 0.001]. Following correction, a strong relationship was achieved in vivo between saline and contrast in both area and diameter without compromising image quality, artefact, or strut assessment. Saline generates reduced dimensions compared to contrast during intravascular optical coherence tomography imaging. The relationship across physiologic coronary diameters is linear and can be corrected with high fidelity. Saline does not adversely impact image quality, artefact, or strut assessment.

Electrical storm (ES) is associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, there has been limited research in ES resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of this life-threatening condition. The objective of this scoping review was to define the current body of literature evaluating pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies used in the management of ES. A comprehensive search of Medline, CENTRAL and Embase was completed on January 11, 2025. Primary studies on pharmacotherapies in ES were included if they reported therapy-related outcomes and included ≥ 5 adult patients. A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized control trials (three trials had overlapping cohorts) and the remaining were observational studies. Amiodarone, quinidine, landiolol, isoproterenol, and mexiletine were the most studied medications. The use of sedation for ES was exclusively studied in the context of mechanical ventilation. There was an increase in the number of ES studies over time, but sample sizes remained small and unchanged. Existing evidence to guide the management of ES is predominantly based on small observational studies. High quality data to inform the management of ES is needed.

Radial artery access is commonly performed for coronary angiography and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Despite limitations in diagnostic accuracy, the modified Allen test (manual occlusion of radial and ulnar arteries followed by release of the latter and assessment of palmar blush) is used routinely to evaluate the collateral circulation to the hand and, therefore, to determine patient eligibility for radial artery access. We sought to evaluate whether a smartphone application may provide a superior alternative to the modified Allen test. We compared the modified Allen test with a smartphone heart rate–monitoring application (photoplethysmography readings detected using a smartphone camera lens placed on the patient’s index finger) in patients undergoing a planned cardiac catheterization. Test order was randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion. All patients then underwent conventional plethysmography of the index finger, followed by Doppler ultrasonography of the radial and ulnar arteries (the diagnostic standard). The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of the heart rate–monitoring application. Among 438 patients who were included in the study, we found that the heart rate–monitoring application had a superior diagnostic accuracy compared with the modified Allen test (91.8% v. 81.7%, p = 0.002), attributable to its greater specificity (93.0% v. 82.8%, p = 0.001). We also found that this application had greater diagnostic accuracy for assessment of radial or ulnar artery patency in the ipsilateral and contralateral wrist (94.0% v. 84.0%, p < 0.001). A smartphone application used at the bedside was diagnostically superior to traditional physical examination for confirming ulnar patency before radial artery access. This study highlights the potential for smartphone-based diagnostics to aid in clinical decision-making at the patient’s bedside. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT02519491.

Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is becoming standard practice in a wide spectrum of clinical settings. There is limited data evaluating the real-world use of FoCUS with artificial intelligence (AI). Our objective was to determine the accuracy of FoCUS AI-assisted left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment and compare its accuracy between novice and experienced users. In this prospective, multicentre study, participants requiring a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) were recruited to have a FoCUS done by a novice or experienced user. The AI-assisted device calculated LVEF at the bedside, which was subsequently compared to TTE. 449 participants were enrolled with 424 studies included in the final analysis. The overall intraclass coefficient was 0.904, and 0.921 in the novice (n = 208) and 0.845 in the experienced (n = 216) cohorts. There was a significant bias of 0.73% towards TTE (p = 0.005) with a level of agreement of 11.2%. Categorical grading of LVEF severity had excellent agreement to TTE (weighted kappa = 0.83). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.98 for identifying an abnormal LVEF (<50%) with a sensitivity of 92.8%, specificity of 92.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.97 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.83. In identifying severe dysfunction (<30%) the AUC was 0.99 with a sensitivity of 78.1%, specificity of 98.0%, NPV of 0.98 and PPV of 0.76. Here we report that FoCUS AI-assisted LVEF assessments provide highly reproducible LVEF estimations in comparison to formal TTE. This finding was consistent among senior and novice echocardiographers suggesting applicability in a variety of clinical settings.