Background COVID‐19 pandemic is a global health crisis. Very few studies have reported association between obesity and severity of COVID‐19. In this meta‐analysis, we assessed the association of obesity and outcomes in COVID‐19 hospitalized patients. Methods Data from observational studies describing the obesity or body mass index (BMI) and outcomes of COVID‐19 hospitalized patients from December 1, 2019, to August 15, 2020, was extracted following PRISMA guidelines with a consensus of two independent reviewers. Adverse outcomes defined as intensive care units (ICU), oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), severe disease and in‐hospital mortality. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were obtained and forest plots were created using random‐effects models. Results A total of 10 studies with 10,233 confirmed COVID‐19 patients were included. The overall prevalence of obesity in our study was 33.9% (3473/10,233). In meta‐analysis, COVID‐19 patient with obesity had higher odds of poor outcomes compared to better outcomes with a pooled OR of 1.88 (95%CI:1.25–2.80; p=0.002), with 86% heterogeneity between studies (p<0.00001). Conclusion Our study suggests a significant association between obesity and COVID‐19 severity and poor outcomes. Our results findings may have important suggestions for the clinical management and future research of obesity and COVID‐19. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

No abstract

Introduction There is limited literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19) complications such as thromboembolism, cardiac complications etc. as possible trigger for stroke. Hence, we aim to evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19 related cardiovascular complications and secondary infection and their possibility as potential triggers for the stroke. Methods Data from observational studies describing the complications [acute cardiac injury (ACI), cardiac arrhythmias (CA), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), septic shock, secondary infection] and outcomes of COVID‐19 hospitalized patients from December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, were extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Adverse outcomes defined as intensive care units, oxygen saturation less than 90%, invasive mechanical ventilation, severe disease, and in‐hospital mortality. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were obtained, and forest plots were created using random‐effects models. A short review of these complications as triggers of stroke was conducted. Results 16 studies with 3480 confirmed COVID-19 patients, prevalence of ACI [38%vs5.9%], CA [26%vs5.3%], DIC [4%vs0.74%], septic shock [18%vs0.36%], and infection [30%vs12.5%] was higher among patients with poor outcomes. In meta-analysis, ACI [aOR:9.93(95%CI:3.95–25.00], CA [7.52(3.29–17.18)], DIC [7.36(1.24–43.73)], septic shock [30.12(7.56–120.10)], and infection [10.41(4.47–24.27)] had higher odds of adverse outcomes. Patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage, had complications like pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, DIC, etc. and had poor outcomes Conclusion The complications like acute cardiac injury, cardiac arrhythmias, DIC, septic shock, and secondary infection had poor outcomes. Patients with stroke were having history of these complications. Long term monitoring is required in such patients to prevent stroke and mitigate adverse outcomes.

Background: According to past studies, recovery and survival following severe vascular events such as acute myocardial infarction and stroke are negatively impacted by vitamin D deficiency. However, the national estimate on disability-related burden is unclear. We intend to evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of vitamin D deficiency (VDD) among patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disorder (CeVD). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2016–2017) of adult (≥18 years) hospitalizations. We identified patients with a secondary diagnosis of VDD and a primary diagnosis of CVD and CeVD using the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, clinical modification code (ICD-10-CM) codes. A univariate and mixed-effect multivariable survey logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the prevalence, disability, and discharge disposition of patients with CVD and CeVD in the presence of VDD. Results: Among 58,259,589 USA hospitalizations, 3.44%, 2.15%, 0.06%, 1.28%, 11.49%, 1.71%, 0.38%, 0.23%, and 0.08% had primary admission of IHD, acute MI, angina, AFib, CHF, AIS, TIA, ICeH, and SAH, respectively and 1.82% had VDD. The prevalence of hospitalizations due to CHF (14.66% vs. 11.43%), AIS (1.87% vs. 1.71%), and TIA (0.4% vs. 0.38%) was higher among VDD patients as compared with non-VDD patients (p < 0.0001). In a regression analysis, as compare with non-VDD patients, the VDD patients were associated with higher odds of discharge to non-home facilities with an admission diagnosis of CHF (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.07–1.09), IHD (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.21–1.28), acute MI (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.19–1.28), AFib (aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.16–1.27), and TIA (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11–1.28). VDD was associated with higher odds of severe or extreme disability among patients hospitalized with AIS (aOR 1.1, 95% CI 1.06–1.14), ICeH (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08–1.38), TIA (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.25–1.47), IHD (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33–1.41), acute MI (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.38–1.49), AFib (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06–1.15), and CHF (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.05) as compared with non-VDD. Conclusions: CVD and CeVD in the presence of VDD increase the disability and discharge to non-home facilities among USA hospitalizations. Future studies should be planned to evaluate the effect of VDD replacement for improving outcomes.

No abstract