No abstract

Aim is to assess the temporal changes and prognostic value of chest radiograph (CXR) in COVID-19 patients. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective study of confirmed COVID-19 patients presented to the emergency between March 07-17, 2020. Clinical & radiological findings were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were classified into critical & non-critical based on severity. Two independent radiologists graded frontal view CXRs into COVID-19 pneumonia category 1 (CoV-P1) with <4 zones and CoV-P2 with ≥4 zones involvement. Interobserver agreement of CoV-P category for the CXR preceding the clinical outcome was assessed using Kendall's τ coefficient. Association between CXR findings and clinical deterioration was calculated along with temporal changes of CXR findings with disease progression. Results: Sixty-two patients were evaluated for clinical features. 56 of these (total: 325 CXRs) were evaluated for radiological findings. Common patterns were progression from lower to upper zones, peripheral to diffuse involvement, & from ground glass opacities to consolidation. Consolidations starting peripherally were noted in 76%, 93% and 48% with critical outcomes, respectively. The interobserver agreement of the CoV-P category of CXRs in the critical and non-critical outcome groups were good and excellent, respectively (τ coefficient = 0.6 & 1.0). Significant association was observed between CoV-P2 and clinical deterioration into a critical status (χ2 = 27.7, p = 0.0001) with high sensitivity (95%) and specificity (71%) within a median interval time of 2 days (range: 0-4 days). Conclusion: Involvement of predominantly 4 or more zones on frontal chest radiograph can be used as predictive prognostic indicator of poorer outcome in COVID-19 patients.

Aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of vernakalant for the cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We reviewed the literature for randomized trials that compared vernakalant to another drug or placebo in patients with AF of onset ≤7 days. We used a random-effects model to combine quantitative data and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). From 441 total citations in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (December 2018), we identified nine trials evaluating 1358 participants. Six trials compared vernakalant to placebo, two trials compared vernakalant to ibutilide, and one trial compared vernakalant to amiodarone. We found significant methodological bias in four trials. For conversion within 90 min, vernakalant was superior to placebo [50% conversion, risk ratio (RR) 5.15; 95% confidence interval (CI); 2.24–11.84, I2 = 91%], whereas we found no significant difference in conversion when vernakalant was compared with an active drug (56% vs. 24% conversion, RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.76–7.58, I2 = 94). Sinus rhythm was maintained at 24 h in 85% (95% CI 80–88%) of patients who converted acutely with vernakalant. Overall, we judged the quality of evidence for efficacy to be low based on inconsistency and suspected publication bias. There was no significant difference in the risk of significant adverse events between vernakalant and comparator (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.70–1.28, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence). Vernakalant is safe and effective for rapid and durable restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with recent-onset AF. Conclusion Vernakalant should be a first line option for the pharmacological cardioversion of patients with haemodynamically stable recent-onset AF without severe structural heart disease.

Purpose This systematic review aimed to summarize reports of the incidence and long-term recurrence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with noncardiac surgery. Sources We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2019. We included studies that reported on the incidence of new-onset perioperative AF during hospitalization for non-cardiac surgery and/or AF recurrence in such patients following discharge. Reviewers screened articles and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. We assessed study quality by appraising methodology for collecting AF history, incident AF during hospitalization, and AF recurrence after discharge.