In-Hospital Mortality Risk Factor Analysis in Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Inpatient Recipients in the United States

Objectives

The primary goal of our study is to evaluate the mortality rate in inpatient recipients of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MVPCI) and to evaluate the demographic risk factors and medical complications that increase the risk of in-hospital mortality.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS, 2016) and included 127,145 inpatients who received MVPCI as a primary procedure in United States' hospitals. We used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for demographic confounders to measure the odds ratio (OR) of association of medical complications and in-hospital mortality risk in MVPCI recipients.

Results

The in-hospital mortality rate was 2% in MVPCI recipients and was seen majorly in older-age adults (>64 years, 74%) and males (61%). Even though the prevalence of mortality among females was comparatively low, yet in the regression model, they were at a higher risk for in-hospital mortality than males (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.13-1.37). While comparing ethnicities, in-hospital mortality was prevalent in whites (79%) followed by blacks (9%) and Hispanics (7.5%). Patients who developed cardiogenic shock were at higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 9.2; 95% CI 8.27-10.24) followed by respiratory failure (OR 5.9; 95% CI 5.39-6.64) and ventricular fibrillation (OR 3.5; 95% CI 3.18-3.92).

Conclusion

Accelerated use of MVPCI made it important to study in-hospital mortality risk factors allowing us to devise strategies to improve the utilization and improve the quality of life of these at-risk patients. Despite its effectiveness and comparatively lower mortality profile, aggressive usage of MVPCI is restricted due to the periprocedural complications and morbidity profile of the patients.

Composite Anxiety-depression among Medical Undergraduates during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

Introduction:

Fear and anxiety is a natural response during crisis. From constant worry of getting infected, death of loved ones, transitioning of lifestyle to loss of social connection; there can be several psychological triggers. The effect on mental health on the general population could be greater than those affected by the infection itself during the pandemic. Among medical students, who already have several other psychological afflictions, these triggers might be detrimental. Hence, this study aims to find out the prevalence of composite anxiety-depression among medical undergraduates in a tertiary care hospital.

Methods:

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among medical undergraduates in a tertiary care hospital from 20th December 2020 to 5th January 2021. Ethical approval was taken from the Institutional Review Committee. The sample size was calculated and convenient sampling was done. The data were entered in International Business Machines Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0. Point estimate at 95% Confidence Interval was calculated along with frequency and proportion for binary data.

Results:

Out of 315 participants on the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety and Depression Scale, severe composite anxiety-depression was seen in 10 (3.17%) at 95% Confidence Interval (1.23-5.1) participants, moderate in 35 (11.11%) at 95% Confidence Interval (7.63-14.58) and mild in 98 (31.11%) at 95% Confidence Interval (25.99-36.22). And 172 (54.6%) at 95% Confidence Interval (49.1-60) were normal.

Conclusions:

The rapid rise of apprehension among people amidst infectious outbreaks can ensue and medical students are no exception. So, at this time of crisis, there is a need to protect their mental health and it should be emphasized and endorsed.

Predictors of Hospitalization for Manic Episode in Alzheimer's Dementia: Inputs From an Inpatient Case-Control Study

Objectives The correlates of manic episodes in dementia have not been systematically studied. The primary goal of our study is to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and psychiatric comorbidities in Alzheimer's dementia (AD) inpatients with manic episodes versus without manic episodes, and to evaluate the demographic predictors and risk factors for manic episodes in AD inpatients. Methods We conducted a case-control study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of 34,285 AD patients (age ≥60 years). Subsequently, the cases i.e., AD inpatients with a manic episode (N = 1,035) and the controls (without a manic episode, N = 1,035), were extracted using propensity-score matching based on age. The cases did not have a past psychiatric history of bipolar disorders. We used the logistic regression model to evaluate the odds ratio (OR) of association between pre-existing psychiatric comorbidities and manic episodes and evaluate the demographic predictors of manic episodes in AD inpatients. Results A higher proportion of AD inpatients with manic episodes were females (63.8%), whites (85.2%), and from low-income families below the 50th percentile (63%). Females were more likely to be hospitalized for manic episodes (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.09-1.64) than males. AD inpatients with manic episodes had a higher risk of presenting with suicidal behaviors (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.23-2.86). A significantly higher proportion of AD inpatients with manic episodes had comorbid tobacco use (5.3% vs. 3.4%) and cannabis use (1.4% vs. 0%) compared to those without manic episodes. Conclusion Females with AD had a greater risk of being hospitalized for manic episodes. These patients have an 88% higher risk of suicidal behaviors during the manic presentation and have comorbid tobacco and cannabis use. Early diagnosis and management of manic episodes in at-risk AD patients are important to improve the quality of life (QoL) and outcomes.

Is Hydroxychloroquine with Azithromycin a Good Combination in COVID-19 Compared to Hydroxychloroquine Alone from Cardiac Perspective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The global spread of COVID-19 and the lack of definite treatment have caused an alarming crisis in the world. We aimed to evaluate the outcome and potential harmful cardiac effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin compared to hydroxychloroquine alone for COVID-19 treatment.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and World Health Organization clinical trial registry were searched using appropriate keywords and identified six studies using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed or random effects for the pooling of studies based on heterogeneities.

RESULTS

The risk of mortality (RR=1.16; CI: 0.92-1.46) and adverse cardiac events (OR=1.06; CI: 0.82-1.37) demonstrated a small increment though of no significance. There were no increased odds of mechanical ventilation (OR=0.84; CI: 0.33-2.15) and significant QTc prolongation (OR=0.84, CI: 0.59-1.21). Neither the critical QTc threshold (OR=1.92, CI: 0.81-4.56) nor absolute ?QTc ?60ms (OR=1.95, CI:0.55-6.96) increased to the level of statistical significance among hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin arm compared to hydroxychloroquine alone, but the slightly increased odds need to be considered in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin leads to small increased odds of mortality and cardiac events compared to hydroxychloroquine alone. The use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin led to increased odds of QT prolongation, although not statistically significant.

Remdesivir: A potential game-changer or just a myth? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

COVID-19 outbreak has created a public health catastrophe all over the world. Here, we have aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on remdesivir use for COVID-19.

MAIN METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and preprint sites and identified ten studies for qualitative and four studies for quantitative analysis using PRISMA guidelines. The quantitative synthesis was performed using fixed and random effect models in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) test.

KEY FINDINGS

Comparing 10-day remdesivir group with placebo or standard of care (SOC) group, remdesivir reduced 14 days mortality (OR 0.61, CI 0.41-0.91), need for mechanical ventilation (OR 0.73, CI 0.54-0.97), and severe adverse effects (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88). Clinical improvement on day 28 (OR 1.59, CI 1.06-2.39), day 14 clinical recovery (OR 1.48, CI 1.19-1.84), and day 14 discharge rate (OR 1.41, CI 1.15-1.73) were better among remdesivir group. Earlier clinical improvement (MD -2.51, CI -4.16 to -0.85); and clinical recovery (MD -4.69, CI -5.11 to -4.28) were seen among the remdesivir group. Longer course (10 days) of remdesivir showed a higher discharge rate at day 14 (OR 2.11, CI 1.50-2.97), but there were significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects, and drug discontinuation than the 5-day course.

SIGNIFICANCE

Remdesivir showed a better 14 days mortality profile, clinical recovery, and discharge rate. Overall clinical improvement and clinical recovery were earlier among the remdesivir group. 10-day remdesivir showed more adverse outcome than 5-day course with no significant benefits.

Corticosteroids in COVID-19: Is it Rational? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Due to a lack of definitive treatment, many drugs were repurposed for Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment; among them, corticosteroid is one. However, its benefit or harm while treating COVID-19 is not fully studied. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the rationality on the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. Pubmed, Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane library, and Preprint publisher were searched. In the qualitative syntheses, 41, and quantitative studies, 40, were included using PRISMA guidelines. Assessment of heterogeneity was done using the I-squared (I 2) test and random/fixed effect analysis was done to determine the odds/risk ratio. We found severely ill COVID-19 patients almost 5 (OR 4.78, 2.76-8.26) times higher odds of getting corticosteroids during their treatment. Similarly, the odds for corticosteroids in addition to standard of care (SOC) were approximately 4 (OR 4.09, 1.89-8.84) times higher among intensive care unit (ICU) patients than non-ICU ones. A higher mortality risk with the corticosteroid-receiving group compared with the SOC alone (RR 2.01, 1.12-3.63) was observed. Neither increased discharge rate (RR 0.79, 0.63-0.99) nor recovery/improvement rate was shown among the corticosteroid-receiving group (OR 0.24, 0.13-0.43). Approximately, the overall 4-day longer hospital stay was found among the treatment groups (MD 4.19, 2.57-5.81). For the negative conversion of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), approximately a 3-day (MD 2.42, 1.31-3.53) delay was observed with corticosteroid treatment cases. Our study concludes that more severe and critically ill patients tend to get corticosteroids, and the mortality risk increases with the use of corticosteroids. With the use of corticosteroids, delayed recovery and a longer hospital stay were observed.

Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: The Study Points to Premature Decisions on Efficacy While Bells Ringing for Safety

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global disease burden. It has affected more than sixteen million people in the world within seven months of its first outbreak in Wuhan. Different treatment modalities, therapeutic and prophylactic agents for its therapy are underway. Until the proven therapy gets available, repurposing of drugs is a better way out. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been a potential recourse of treatment in this regard for COVID-19 management. As different episodes of cardiac adverse events of HCQ are reported, safety concerns are now a prime objective. The risk-benefit analysis is mandatory to address rational drug therapy even in such a global health crisis. In this article, we want to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HCQ in COVID-19 management.