Search

Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection is a very rare vascular disease that involves the superior mesenteric artery or its branches, with an incidence as low as 0.08%. The majority of cases occur in patients of Asian descent. Due to advances in imaging modalities, particularly abdominal computed tomography angiography, the diagnosis of this disease has been increasing. Herein, we present a rare case of spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with thrombosis in a young male patient with no past medical history. The importance of this disease as a differential diagnosis for acute abdominal pain is emphasized. Résumé: La dissection isolée spontanée de l’artère mésentérique supérieure est une maladie vasculaire très rare qui affecte l’artère mésentérique supérieure ou ses branches, et dont l’incidence s’élève à peine à 0,08 %. La majorité des cas surviennent chez des patients d’ascendance asiatique. En raison des progrès réalisés dans les modalités d’imagerie, et en particulier de l’angiographie abdominale par tomodensitométrie, le diagnostic de cette affection est en hausse. Nous présentons ici un rare cas de dissection isolée spontanée de l’artère mésentérique supérieure avec thrombose chez un jeune patient sans antécédents médicaux. L’importance de cette maladie dans le diagnostic différentiel de la douleur abdominale aiguë est mise en évidence.

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced hospitals to prioritize COVID-19 patients, restrict resources, and cancel all non-urgent elective cardiac procedures. Clinical visits have only been facilitated for emergency purposes. Fewer patients have been admitted to the hospital for both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI) and a profound decrease in heart failure services has been reported. A similar reduction in the patient presentation is seen for ischemic heart disease, decompensated heart failure, and endocarditis. Cardiovascular services, including catheterization, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), cardiac investigations such as electrocardiograms (ECGs), exercise tolerance test (ETT), dobutamine stress test, computed tomography (CT) angiography, transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) have been reported to have declined and performed on a priority basis. The long-term implications of this decline have been discussed with major concerns of severe cardiac complications and vulnerabilities in cardiac patients. The pandemic has also had psychological impacts on patients causing them to avoid seeking medical help. This review discusses the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of various cardiology services and aims to provide strategies to restore cardiovascular services including structural changes in the hospital to make up for the reduced staff personnel, the use of personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, and provides alternatives for high-risk cardiac imaging, cardiac interventions, and procedures. Implementation of the triage system, risk assessment scores, and telemedicine services in patients and their adaptation to the cardiovascular department have been discussed.

Background The evolutionary stages of manufacturing have led us to conceptualize the use of Industry 4.0 for COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), powered by Industry 4.0 technologies. Using applications of integrated process optimizations reliant on digitized data, we propose novel intelligent networks along the vaccine value chain. Vaccine 4.0 may enable maintenance processes, streamline logistics, and enable optimal production of COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine 4.0 Framework The challenge in applying Vaccine 4.0 includes the requirement of large-scale technologies for digitally transforming manufacturing, producing, rolling-out, and distributing vaccines. With our framework, Vaccine 4.0 analytics will target process performance, process development, process stability, compliance, quality assessment, and optimized maintenance. The benefits of digitization during and post the COVID-19 pandemic include first, the continual assurance of process control, and second, the efficacy of big-data analytics in streamlining set parameter limits. Digitization including big data-analytics may potentially improve the quality of large-scale vaccine production, profitability, and manufacturing processes. The path to Vaccine 4.0 will enhance vaccine quality, improve efficacy, and compliance with data-regulated requirements. Discussion Fiscal and logistical barriers are prevalent across resource-limited countries worldwide. The Vaccine 4.0 framework accounts for expected barriers of manufacturing and equitably distributing COVID-19 vaccines. With amalgamating big data analytics and biometrics, we enable the identification of vulnerable populations who are at higher risk of disease transmission. Artificial intelligence powered sensors and robotics support thermostable vaccine distribution in limited capacity regions, globally. Biosensors isolate COVID-19 vaccinations with low or limited efficacy. Finally, Vaccine 4.0 blockchain systems address low- and middle-income countries with limited distribution capacities. Conclusion Vaccine 4.0 is a viable framework to optimize manufacturing of vaccines during and post the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Prevention of stroke by anticoagulation is essential in patients with Atrial fibrillation (AF); with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) being preferred over warfarin in most patients. The Long-term efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) remain unknown. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus) were searched from inception to February 10th, 2021. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and systemicembolism. The safety endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (a composite of major or minor clinically relevant bleeding). Results: A total of three studies with 3039 participants (LAAO = 1465; DOACs = 1574) were included. Mean age was 74.2 and 75.3 years in the LAAO and DOAC group respectively. Average follow-up period was 2 years. There was no difference in terms of cardiac mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40–2.03; p = 0.81), ischemic stroke/TIA (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80–1.65; p = 0.46; I2 = 0) and clinically significant bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50–1.17; p = 0.22; I2 = 69) between the groups. Conclusions: Among patients with AF, LAAO was comparable to DOACs with similar efficacy and safety profiles.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predisposes patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to risk factors, severe infection, and severe inflammatory responses. The objective is to determine the risk of developing VTE after corticosteroid administration during COVID-19 treatment. Using PRISMA reporting guidelines, a review was conducted from inception until 20 September 2020 with MESH terms including “venous thromboembolism” and “covid-19,” using MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and WHO Global Database. The inclusion criteria included studies with COVID-19 patients aged 18 years and older with VTE diagnosed by duplex ultrasonography or computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Exclusion criteria were studies with non COVID-19 patients and non-VTE patients aged less than 18 years. Quality appraisal was conducted of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random-effect model using 95% confidence intervals, and significance of findings was assessed using Review Manager V5.4.We included 12 observational studies with 2801 patients (VTE n = 434; non-VTE; n = 2367). Patients had a higher risk of presenting with VTE when being administered corticosteroids during treatment of COVID-19 (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.77, I 2 = 0%). A positive effect size was found (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.32, I 2 = 85%) for D-dimer laboratory values (µg/mL) in the VTE group. While critically ill COVID-19 patients are more likely to require corticosteroid treatment, it may be associated with increased risk of VTE, and poor clinical prognosis. Risk assessment is warranted to further evaluate patients as case-by-case in reducing VTE and worsening clinical outcomes.

Background: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), primarily performed in patients who fail antiarrhythmic drugs. Whether early catheter ablation, as first-line therapy, is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unclear. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase) were searched until March 28th, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first-line therapy were included. The primary outcome of interest was the first documented recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (symptomatic or asymptomatic; AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia). Secondary outcomes included symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia) and serious adverse events. Unadjusted risk ratios (RR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance considered if the confidence interval (CI) excludes one and p < 0.05. Results: A total of six RCTs with 1212 patients (Ablation n = 609; Antiarrhythmic n = 603) were included. Follow- up period ranged from 1–2 years. Patients who underwent ablation were less likely to experience any recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia when compared to patients receiving antiarrhythmic drugs (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.55–0.73; p < 0.00001). Symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia was also lower in the ablation arm (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.32–0.87; p = 0.01). No statistically significant differences were noted for overall any type of adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68–1.27; p = 0.64) and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.56–1.44; p = 0.65) respectively. Conclusions: Catheter ablation, as first-line therapy, was associated with a significantly lower rate of tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional antiarrhythmic drugs, with a similar adverse effect risk profile. These findings support a catheter ablation strategy as first-line therapy among patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.