Explore the vast range of titles available.

Hospital readmissions following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to investigate if there is a significant association between specific mental health disorders (MHD) and risk of hospital readmission after an index hospitalization for acute MI. We analyzed the U.S. National Readmission Database for adult acute MI hospitalizations from 2016 to 2017. Co-morbid diagnoses of MHD were obtained using appropriate ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission. Cox-regression analysis was used to identify the association of various MHD and risk of 30-day readmission adjusted for demographics, medical and cardiac comorbidities, and coronary revascularization. We identified a total of 1,045,752 hospitalizations for acute MI; patients had mean age of 67 ± 13 years with 37.6% female. The prevalence of any MHD was 15.0 ± 0.9%. After adjusting for potential confounders, comorbid diagnosis of major depression [HR 1.11 (95% CI 1.07–1.15)], bipolar disorders [1.32 (1.19–1.45)], anxiety disorders [1.09 (1.05–1.13)] and schizophrenia/other psychotic disorders [1.56 (1.43–1.69)] were independently associated with higher risk of 30-day readmission compared to those with no comorbid MHD. We conclude that MHD are significantly associated with a higher independent risk of 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions among acute MI hospitalizations.

Although dyslipidemia has been consistently shown to be associated with atherogenesis, an association between obesity and cardiovascular disease outcomes remains controversial. Mendelian randomization can minimize confounding if variables are randomly and equally distributed in the population of interest. To assess evidence from mendelian randomization studies to provide a less biased estimate of any association between obesity and cardiovascular outcomes. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and Scopus from database inception until January 2018, supplemented with manual searches of the included reference lists. Studies that used mendelian randomization methods to assess the association between any measure of obesity and the incidence of cardiovascular events and those that reported odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs estimated using an instrumental variable method were included. The 5 studies included in the final analysis were based on a consensus among 3 authors. Two investigators independently extracted study characteristics using a standard form and pooled data using a random-effects model. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline was followed. Obesity associated with type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, or stroke. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection. Of 4660 potentially relevant articles, 2511 titles were screened. Seven studies were included in the systematic review, and 5 studies with 881 692 participants were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates revealed that obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.14; P < .001; I2 = 93%) and coronary artery disease (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P = .03; I2 = 87%). No association between obesity and stroke was found (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09; P = .65; I2 = 0%). The present meta-analysis suggests that obesity is associated with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Although this analysis of mendelian randomization studies does not prove causality, it is supportive of a causal association. Hence, health care practitioners should continue to emphasize weight reduction to combat coronary artery disease.

Background: The emergence of the COVID-19 epidemic threw the world into turmoil. The medical community bore the brunt of the pandemic's toll. Long work hours, and a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and social support all had an influence on mental health. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among Lumbini Medical College Teaching Hospital students and employees in Palpa, Nepal. Data entailing their demographic details, pre-existing comorbidities, or death in the family due to COVID-19 was collected using a self-administered survey. In addition, the level of fear, anxiety, obsession, and functional impairment due to COVID-19 was recorded using previously validated respective scales. Results: In total, 403 health-care workers and trainees participated in our study. The mean age of the study participants was 23±4 years, and more than half of them (n=262, 65%) were females. A significant association was found between fear score with age (p-value=0.04), gender (p-value <0.01) and occupation (p-value<0.001). The participants suffering from chronic diseases (p-value=0.36), were not found to be significantly obsessed with COVID-19. Age (p-value=0.34), was not found to be significantly associated with higher anxiety levels. Nursing students suffered from a significantly greater functional impairment than other health-care professionals (mean rank score=269.15, p-value < 0.001). A moderately positive correlation was observed between fear, anxiety, obsession, and functional impairment scales. Conclusion: This study revealed various socio-demographic characteristics as risk factors for psychological stress in the people related to the health-care profession of Nepal during the COVID-19 pandemic. A viable answer to this quandary might be adequate psychosocial intervention by health-care authorities, increased social support, and the introduction of better mental health management measures for the front-line health-care workers.

Although it is well established that cigarette smoking is associated with morbidity and mortality in several respiratory infections, data from recent studies suggest that active smokers are underrepresented among patients with COVID-19. This has led to claims that a ‘smoker’s paradox’ may exist in COVID-19, wherein smokers are protected from infection and severe complications of COVID-19. We aimed to review and summarise existing literature in this context. Electronic databases were searched for articles that reported prevalence of smokers among patients with COVID-19 or studied any association of smoking with outcomes among patients with COVID-19. We identified several biases and knowledge gaps which may give the false impression that smoking is protective in COVID-19. As of now, the data supporting smoker’s paradox claims are limited and questionable. Plausible biologic mechanisms by which smoking might be protective in COVID-19 include an anti-inflammatory effect of nicotine, a blunted immune response in smokers (reducing the risk of a cytokine storm in COVID-19) and increased nitric oxide in the respiratory tract (which may inhibit replication of SARS-CoV-2 and its entry into cells). On the other hand, smoking may worsen susceptibility and prognosis in COVID-19, in a manner similar to other respiratory infections. The claims of a protective effect must be viewed with extreme caution by both the general population as well as clinicians. Further investigations into the interaction between smoking and COVID-19 are warranted to accurately assess the risk of contracting COVID-19 among smokers, and progression to mechanical ventilation or death in patients suffering from it.

Background The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies. Methods Eleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated, and the quality was determined to be “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “critically low.” Results Eighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of “critically low quality” and two were of “low quality.” These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%). Conclusions The low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2’s rating rules.

Aims We sought to conduct a meta‐analysis regarding the safety and efficacy of sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF). Methods and results MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to November 2020 for placebo‐controlled randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they reported at least one of the prespecified outcomes in patients with HF. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random‐effects model. A total of seven trials including 16 820 HF patients (N = 8884 in the SGLT2 inhibitor arms; N = 7936 in the placebo arms) were included. In the overall HF cohort, SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death [HR: 0.77 (0.72–0.83); P < 0.001; I2 = 0%], time to first HF hospitalization [HR: 0.71 (0.64–0.78); P < 0.001; I2 = 0], cardiovascular mortality [HR: 0.87 (0.79–0.96); P = 0.005; I2 = 0%], and all‐cause mortality [HR: 0.89 (0.82–0.96); P = 0.004; I2 = 0%]. Results remained consistent across HF‐specific trials and according to diabetes mellitus status. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction for the composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death [HR: 0.80 (0.63–1.00); P = 0.05; I2 = 29%]. No increased risk of hypovolaemia, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension was seen with SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. Conclusions SGLT2 inhibitors significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes including cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality in patients with HF without an increased risk of serious adverse events. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

Bibliometric analyses can help researchers and research funding agencies determine which areas of medicine need appropriate research attention. Citation classics of several specialties and subspecialties have been published; however, a literature search did not turn up any in the field of valvular heart disease (VHD). The main objective of this analysis was to overcome this paucity by identifying the top 100 cited articles in VHD and to assess their characteristics. We chose Scopus as our database, from where relevant articles were extracted after a thorough search by 2 independent researchers. A list of the top 100 cited articles was prepared, after which a detailed analysis of the list was conducted. The top-cited articles were published in the 63-year era starting from 1951, with the most articles published in the 10-year interval of 2001 to 2010. The citations of the articles ranged from 438 to 2,717 with a median of 609.5. Manuscripts from our top-cited list originated from 25 different countries. Most of the articles in the top 100 list were published in high-impact journals, with about a third of the articles published in Circulation (n = 27). Our study also reveals that the current focus of researchers in the field is on transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and therefore, funding in this area is likely to result in impactful studies. In conclusion, our study highlights the characteristics of high-impact articles in the field of VHD, and this information may be useful for investigators planning to conduct studies in this area of medicine in the future.

Despite evidence of higher medical comorbidities amongst patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, data suggest that these patients receive less screening and preventive interventions. [...]it is more challenging to implement lifestyle interventions aimed at modifying cardiometabolic risk factors amongst this cohort.1 Previously, several studies have examined the relationship between coronary heart disease and psychotic disorders, however little data exist for patients with heart failure (HF).1 Therefore, we evaluated the effect of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia on readmission rates amongst patients with HF. [...]some patients may be represented in more than one hospitalization episode as the NRD does not account for repeat admissions. [...]studies are required to evaluate the underlying cause of increase readmission in patients with HF and bipolar or schizophrenia/psychotic disorders.