Background. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are considered to be "vulnerable" to COVID-19 infection due to immunosuppression. To date, there are no studies that compared the disease severity of COVID-19 in SOT recipients with nontransplant patients. Methods. In this case-control study, we compared the outcomes of COVID-19 between SOT recipients and their matched nontransplant controls. The cases were all adult SOT recipients (N = 41) from our academic health center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10, 2020 and May 15, 2020 using positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2. The controls (N = 121) were matched on age (±5 y), race, and admission status (hospital or outpatient). The primary outcome was death and secondary outcomes were severe disease, intubation and renal replacement therapy (RRT). Results. Median age of SOT recipients (9 heart, 3 lung, 16 kidney, 8 liver, and 5 dual organ) was 60 y, 80% were male and 67% were Black. Severe disease adjusted risk of death was similar in both the groups (hazard ratio = 0.84 [0.32-2.20]). Severity of COVID-19 and intubation were similar, but the RRT use was higher in SOT (odds ratio = 5.32 [1.26, 22.42]) compared to non-SOT COVID-19 patients. Among SOT recipients, COVID-19-related treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with 10-fold higher hazard of death compared to without HCQ (hazard ratio = 10.62 [1.24-91.09]). Conclusions. Although African Americans constituted one-tenth of all SOT in our center, they represented two-thirds of COVID-19 cases. Despite high RRT use in SOT recipients, the severe disease and short-term death were similar in both groups. HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 among SOT recipients was associated with high mortality and therefore, its role as a treatment modality requires further scrutiny.
Background Heart rate variability (HRV) characterizes cardiac autonomic functioning. The association of HRV with stroke is uncertain. We examined whether 24-hour HRV added predictive value to the Cardiovascular Health Study clinical stroke risk score (CHS-SCORE), previously developed at the baseline examination. Methods and Results N=884 stroke-free CHS participants (age 75.3 ± 4.6), with 24-hour Holters adequate for HRV analysis at the 1994–1995 examination, had 68 strokes over ≤8 year follow-up (median 7.3 [interquartile range 7.1–7.6] years). The value of adding HRV to the CHS-SCORE was assessed with stepwise Cox regression analysis. The CHS-SCORE predicted incident stroke (HR=1.06 per unit increment, P=0.005). Two HRV parameters, decreased coefficient of variance of NN intervals (CV%, P=0.031) and decreased power law slope (SLOPE, P=0.033) also entered the model, but these did not significantly improve the c-statistic (P=0.47). In a secondary analysis, dichotomization of CV% (LOWCV% ≤12.8%) was found to maximally stratify higher-risk participants after adjustment for CHS-SCORE. Similarly, dichotomizing SLOPE (LOWSLOPE <− 1.4) maximally stratified higher-risk participants. When these HRV categories were combined (eg, HIGHCV% with HIGHSLOPE), the c-statistic for the model with the CHS-SCORE and combined HRV categories was 0.68, significantly higher than 0.61 for the CHS-SCORE alone (P=0.02). Conclusions In this sample of older adults, 2 HRV parameters, CV% and power law slope, emerged as significantly associated with incident stroke when added to a validated clinical risk score. After each parameter was dichotomized based on its optimal cut point in this sample, their composite significantly improved prediction of incident stroke during ≤8-year follow-up. These findings will require validation in separate, larger cohorts.
BackgroundMultiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta‐analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Methods and ResultsSearches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All‐cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all‐cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653–1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703–1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615–1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol‐free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527–0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781–1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).ConclusionsRIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.