Objectives The coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has resulted in the worst global pandemic of our generation, affecting 215 countries with nearly 5.5 million cases. The association between COVID‐19 and the cardiovascular system has been well described. We sought to systematically review the current published literature on the different cardiac manifestations and the use of cardiac‐specific biomarkers in terms of their prognostic value in determining clinical outcomes and correlation to disease severity. Methods A systematic literature review across PubMed, Cochrane database, Embase, Google Scholar, and Ovid was performed according to PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant articles that discussed risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations, cardiac manifestations in COVID‐19 patients, and cardiac‐specific biomarkers with their clinical implications on COVID‐19. Results Sixty‐one relevant articles were identified which described risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations, cardiac manifestations (including heart failure, cardiogenic shock, arrhythmia, and myocarditis among others) and cardiac‐specific biomarkers (including CK‐MB, CK, myoglobin, troponin, and NT‐proBNP). Cardiovascular risk factors can play a crucial role in identifying patients vulnerable to developing cardiovascular manifestations of COVID‐19 and thus help to save lives. A wide array of cardiac manifestations is associated with the interaction between COVID‐19 and the cardiovascular system. Cardiac‐specific biomarkers provide a useful prognostic tool in helping identify patients with the severe disease early and allowing for escalation of treatment in a timely fashion. Conclusion COVID‐19 is an evolving pandemic with predominate respiratory manifestations, however, due to the interaction with the cardiovascular system; cardiac manifestations/complications feature heavily in this disease, with cardiac biomarkers providing important prognostic information.

The efficacy and relapse rate of this procedure appears to be similar to that of traditional surgery and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. The technique was effective and safe for all degrees of haemorrhoids because of the excellent results, low complication rate and minor postoperative pain.

The current evolving global pandemic caused by coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) has dramatically impacted global health care systems, resulting in governments taking unprecedented measures to contain the spread of the infection, with adaptations by health care organizations. Research into understanding the pathophysiology behind this virus, to ascertain best medical management and treatment, has been accelerated to keep up with the rapidly evolving situation. There has been redeployment of medical and nursing staff to the frontlines and redistribution of health care resources. In addition, the cancellation of elective surgery and centralization of services to treat high‐risk surgical cases will all, undeniably, have an impact on current surgical training with possible future implications. We aim to explore the impact COVID‐19 is having on cardiac surgical training in the UK and what future implications this may have.

The global pandemic caused by COVID‐19 has had a significant global impact on healthcare systems. One implication of this pandemic is the cancellation of elective cardiac surgeries and the centralization of services. As a result, hospitals in Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom have had to alter the services offered to patients to be able to cope with service provision for COVID infected patients. Data should be collected during this period to provide a good insight following the lockdown period to understand the implication of such service alteration. Future research should also focus on the effects on long‐term mortality and morbidity as well as financial implications on hospitals as a result of these changes.

BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.

Background: Young patients with coronary artery disease are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) primarily, with a view to deferring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We investigated the validity of this approach, by comparing outcomes in patients ≤50 years undergoing CABG or PCI. Methods:One hundred consecutive patients undergoing PCI and 100 undergoing CABG in 2004 were retrospectively studied to allow for 5 and 12 years follow-up.The two groups were compared for the primary endpoints of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE).Results: Diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% were higher in the CABG group. At 5 years, rates of myocardial infarction (MI) (9% vs 1%, P = .02), repeat revascularization (31% vs 7%, P < .01), and MACCE (34 vs 12, P < .01) were greater in the PCI vs the CABG group. Similarly, at 12 years, rates of MI (27.4% vs 19.4%, P = .19), repeat revascularization (41.1% vs 20.4%, P < .01), and MACCE (51 vs 40, P = .07) were greater in the PCI group. There were no differences in major outcomes in patients with 1 or 2VD, at 5 or 12 years. Rates of MI, revascularization, and MACCE were higher in patients with 3VD undergoing PCI (n = 21; MI, 47.6%; revascularization, 66.7%; and MACCE, 19 events) vs CABG (n = 78; MI, 19.2%; revascularization, 20.5%; and MACCE, 31 events); P < .01, for all end points.Conclusions: MACCE was lower in young patients undergoing CABG vs PCI at both 5 and 12 years follow-up, primarily as a consequence of patients with 3VD undergoing PCI having more MI and repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the preferred method of revascularization in young patients with 3VD. K E Y W O R D Scoronary artery disease, coronary artery disease in the young, revascularization Abbreviations: BMS, bare metal stent; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; DES, drug-eluting stent; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; IMA, internal mammary artery; LAD, left anterior descending artery; LIMA, left internal mammary artery; LMS, left main stem; LVF, left ventricular function; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MACCE, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, includes death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization; MI, myocardial infarction; PATS, Patient Administration and Tracking System; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; VD, vessel disease.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact on incident infective endocarditis (IE) of guideline recommendations to restrict indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published between 2007 and 2015 using mesh terms relevant to the research question. Included were English language articles published after 2009 that provided estimates of IE incidence before-and-after major international guideline changes. Seven studies were identified: 1 conducted in France, 4 in the USA and 2 in the UK. Only 1 study reported an increase in the rate of incident IE following guideline modification, and the remainder showed no change in upward (2 studies) or downward (4 studies) incidence trends. Study quality was generally poor for answering the question posed in this review, with serious risk of bias related to diagnostic ascertainment and unavailability of population risk data to adjust the incidence estimates. Moreover, the studies were often small, and relevant bacteriological data were not always available. Only 2 reported changes in antibiotic prescriptions, but these data were not linked to health records making it impossible to determine causal relations to changes in incident IE. The studies in this review were heterogenous in their design and variably limited by study size, duration of follow-up, diagnostic ascertainment, and absence of relevant prescription and bacteriological data. The studies were inconsistent in their conclusions and it remains uncertain what, if any, has been the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis guideline changes on the incidence of IE.