Background The spectrum of neurological involvement in COVID-19 is not thoroughly understood. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis and a sub-group comparison between severe and non-severe cases has been published. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency of neurological manifestations and complications, identify the neurodiagnostic findings, and compare these aspects between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted for studies published between the 1st of January 2020 and 22nd of April 2020. In addition, we scanned the bibliography of included studies to identify other potentially eligible studies. The criteria for eligibility included studies published in English language (or translated to English), those involving patients with COVID-19 of all age groups, and reporting neurological findings. Data were extracted from eligible studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled percentages and means with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of individual studies on the summary estimate. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to severity. The main outcomes of the study were to identify the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations and complications, and the neuro-diagnostic findings in COVID-19 patients. Results 44 articles were included with a pooled sample size of 13,480 patients. The mean age was 50.3 years and 53% were males. The most common neurological manifestations were: Myalgia (22.2, 95% CI, 17.2 to 28.1%), taste impairment (19.6, 95% CI, 3.8 to 60.1%), smell impairment (18.3, 95% CI, 15.4 to 76.2%), headache (12.1, 95% CI, 9.1 to 15.8%), dizziness (11.3, 95% CI, 8.5 to 15.0%), and encephalopathy (9.4, 95% CI, 2.8 to 26.6%). Nearly 2.5% (95% CI, 1 to 6.1%) of patients had acute cerebrovascular diseases (CVD). Myalgia, elevated CK and LDH, and acute CVD were significantly more common in severe cases. Moreover, 20 case reports were assessed qualitatively, and their data presented separately. Conclusions Neurological involvement is common in COVID-19 patients. Early recognition and vigilance of such involvement might impact their overall outcomes.

Abstract Background: The spectrum of neurological involvement in COVID-19 is not thoroughly understood. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis and a sub-group comparison between severe and non-severe cases has been published. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency of neurological manifestations and complications, identify the neurodiagnostic findings, and compare these aspects between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted for studies published between the 1st of January 2020 and 22nd of April 2020. In addition, we scanned the bibliography of included studies to identify other potentially eligible studies. The criteria for eligibility included studies published in English language (or translated to English), those involving patients with COVID-19 of all age groups, and reporting neurological findings. Data were extracted from eligible studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled percentages and means with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of individual studies on the summary estimate. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to severity. The main outcomes of the study were to identify the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations and complications, and the neuro-diagnostic findings in COVID-19 patients.Results: 44 articles were included with a pooled sample size of 13480 patients. The mean age was 50.3 years and 53% were males. The most common neurological manifestations were: Myalgia (22.2%, 95% CI, 17.2% to 28.1%), taste impairment (19.6%, 95% CI, 3.8% to 60.1%), smell impairment (18.3%, 95% CI, 15.4% to 76.2%), headache (12.1%, 95% CI, 9.1% to 15.8%), dizziness (11.3%, 95% CI, 8.5% to 15.0%), and encephalopathy (9.4%, 95% CI, 2.8% to 26.6%). Nearly 2.5% (95% CI, 1% to 6.1%) of patients had acute cerebrovascular diseases (CVD). Myalgia, elevated CK and LDH, and acute CVD were significantly more common in severe cases. Moreover, 20 case reports were assessed qualitatively, and their data presented separately.Conclusions: Neurological involvement is common in COVID-19 patients. Early recognition and vigilance of such involvement might impact their overall outcomes.

Background Acute ischemic stroke (Stroke) and transient ischemic attacks (TIA) are known complications in cancer patients and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). The role AF plays in Stroke/TIA in the setting of cancer is unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between AF and Stroke/TIA in cancer patients. Methods We conducted a case-control study comparing all patients who developed Stroke/TIA from 2014 to 2019 following a cancer diagnosis at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC), matched to Stroke/TIA-free controls based on age, gender, and cancer site. Results Two hundred seventy-two patients were included (136 per group). The mean age was 63.95 ± 13.06 and 57% were females. The Stroke/TIA group had more AF at the time of event (14% vs. 4%, OR: 4.25, 95%-CI: 1.39 - 17.36) and had a larger proportion of death on study conclusion (OR: 9.4, 95%-CI: 3.74 - 23.64). On conditional logistic regression, patients in the Stroke/TIA group had higher odds of: AF (OR: 7.93, 95%-CI: 1.6 – 39.18), ischemic stroke before cancer diagnosis (OR: 9.18, 95%-CI: 2.66 – 31.74), being on active cancer treatment (OR: 3.11, 95%-CI: 1.46 – 6.62), dyslipidemia (OR: 3.78, 95%-CI: 1.32 – 10.82), and renal disease (OR: 4.25, 95%-CI: 1.55 – 11.63). On another conditional logistic regression model built to assess the role of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, a score of >=2 in males and >=3 in females significantly increased the risk of developing Stroke/TIA in cancer patients (OR: 2.45, 95%-CI: 1.08 - 5.58). Conclusion AF, previous ischemic stroke, active cancer treatment, dyslipidemia, and renal disease are independent risk factors for Stroke/TIA and a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score significantly increases the risk in cancer patients regardless of AF.

No abstract

Background:The pathophysiology of coronary artery ectasia (CAE) is under investigated and not well understood. Atherosclerosis is considered as the main etiologic factor for CAE in adults where more than 50% of CAE patients have atherosclerosis. Recently, lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) has emerged as a powerful risk factor for atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease (CAD). Serum levels of Lp(a) in patients with CAE have not been investigated. We assumed that Lp(a) may play a role in the pathogenesis of CAE. Principally, our study aims to identify whether Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for CAE. Methods:Our study is a prospective pilot study. Study population was collected prospectively from pool of patients referred for elective cardiac catheterization at Jordan University Hospital (JUH) in the period extending from February 17, 2018 to June 31, 2018. Patients were referred for elective coronary angiography after being interviewed and physically examined by a cardiologist (HA). Patients with known history of CAD or who are already on anti-lipidemic drugs either documented in the medical records or by interviewing patients for history of revascularization were excluded from the study. Results:Regarding the primary outcome, there was no significant difference in Lp(a) concentrations between normal and ectasia groups in the general sample (median: 17.5mg/dL vs. 20.4 mg/dL, P value = 0.38). Conclusions:Our study concludes that there is no detected relationship between elevated Lp(a) levels and developing CAE. CAE was more common in patients with low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level (compared with patients with normal coronaries), higher total cholesterol level (compared with patients with non-obstructive stenosis) and higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

(1) Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia causing an increased risk of mortality and morbidity. It is classified into paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal AF depending on the duration and frequency of the episodes. (2) Aims: Our goal was to investigate and compare the clinical profiles, risk of co-morbidities, the use of oral anticoagulation, and outcomes of patients with paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal AF in inpatient and outpatient settings. (3) Methods: Data were extracted from 28 different hospitals and centers in Jordan with a total of 2160 patients enrolled in the study using an observational non-interventional study model. The clinical features and the use of oral anticoagulants were compared in patients with paroxysmal and non-paroxysmal AF. (4) Results: Paroxysmal AF was documented in 35.6% (769) of the patients and non-paroxysmal types in 63.9% (1380); in addition, the type of AF was unknown in 11 (0.5%) patients. Our results showed that non-paroxysmal AF patients tend to be older with more co-morbidities and higher CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores. They also have higher rates of hypertension and diabetes. Anticoagulant, antiarrhythmic, and diuretic agents, overall, were used more in non-paroxysmal AF than paroxysmal AF. Hospital admissions were also more frequent in non-paroxysmal AF due to various factors, some of which are heart failure, bleeding risk, and COPD. (5) Conclusions: Non-paroxysmal AF is more common among Jordanian AF patients. The prevalence of comorbidities and the use of different types of therapies, especially anticoagulants, were higher in these patients.

Background: A recanalizing-process might decrease the incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) at a late assessment postcatheterization opposed to an early assessment. In this study, we evaluated the rate of RAO at a late postcatheterization period. Materials & methods: A retrospective case-control design was adapted including 148 patients who underwent trans-radial cardiac catheterization 7 to 18 months ago. The primary outcome was to assess RAO at the mentioned period while the secondary outcomes were to assess risk factors and symptoms associated with occlusion. RAO was assessed by Doppler ultrasound. Result: Thirteen patients (8.8%) had RAO in a median follow-up time of 13 months. Hand disability as measured by QuickDash score was significantly associated with RAO. Conclusion: This study adds a new insight on late RAO after coronary catheterization in Jordan and the region. Our findings support an ischemic mechanism contributing to long-term hand dysfunction.

Background and Objectives: Patients with AF are at increased risk for Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) owing to their shared etiologies and risk factors. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, cardiovascular risk factors, and used medications of CAD in AF patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective, case-control study utilized data from the Jordanian Atrial Fibrillation (Jo-Fib) registry. Investigators collected clinical features, history of co-existing comorbidities, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS BLED scores for all AF patients aged >18 visiting 19 hospitals and 30 outpatient cardiology clinics. A multivariable binary logistic regression was used to asses for factors associated with higher odds of having CAD. Results: Out of 2000 patients with AF, 227 (11.35%) had CAD. Compared to the rest of the sample, those with CAD had significantly higher prevalence of hypertension (82.38%; p < 0.01), hypercholesterolemia (66.52%, p < 0.01), diabetes (56.83%, p < 0.01), and smoking (18.06%, p = 0.04). Patients with AF and CAD had higher use of anticoagulants/antiplatelet agents combination (p < 0.01) compared to the rest of the sample. Females had lower CAD risk than males (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24–0.50). AF Patients with dyslipidemia (OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.8–3.4), smoking (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.6), higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.7), and asymptomatic AF (OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3–2.6) had higher risk for CAD. Conclusions: Owing to the increased prevalence of CAD in patients with AF, better control of cardiac risk factors is recommended for this special group. Future studies should investigate such interesting relationships to stratify CAD risk in AF patients. We believe that this study adds valuable information regarding the prevalence, epidemiological characteristics, and pharmacotherapy of CAD in patients with AF.