Search

Journals have been described as "duty bearers" of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored "excellent" on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has transformed health systems worldwide. There is conflicting data regarding the degree of cardiovascular involvement following infection. A registry was designed to evaluate the prevalence of echocardiographic abnormalities in adults recovered from COVID-19. We prospectively evaluated 595 participants (mean age 45.5 ± 14.9 years; 50.8% female) from 10 institutions in Argentina and Brazil. Median time between infection and evaluation was two months, and 82.5% of participants were not hospitalized for their infection. Echocardiographic studies were conducted with General Electric equipment; 2DE imaging and global longitudinal strain (GLS) of both ventricles were performed. A total of 61.7% of the participants denied relevant cardiovascular history and 41.8% had prolonged symptoms after resolution of COVID-19 infection. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 61.0 ± 5.5% overall. In patients without prior comorbidities, 8.2% had some echocardiographic abnormality: 5.7% had reduced GLS, 3.0% had a LVEF below normal range, and 1.1% had wall motion abnormalities. The right ventricle (RV) was dilated in 1.6% of participants, 3.1% had a reduced GLS, and 0.27% had reduced RV function. Mild pericardial effusion was observed in 0.82% of participants. Male patients were more likely to have new echocardiographic abnormalities (OR 2.82, p = 0.002). Time elapsed since infection resolution (p = 0.245), presence of symptoms (p = 0.927), or history of hospitalization during infection (p = 0.671) did not have any correlation with echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiovascular abnormalities after COVID-19 infection are rare and usually mild, especially following mild infection, being a low GLS of left and right ventricle, the most common ones in our registry. Post COVID cardiac abnormalities may be more frequent among males. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ankle-brachial index is a commonly used tool for identifying peripheral artery disease for cardiovascular risk stratification. An abnormal ankle-brachial index occurs only following extensive peripheral atherosclerosis occlusion, and thus has poor sensitivity for coronary atherosclerosis. There is a critical need for the development of tools that can detect risk prior to advanced stages of atherosclerosis. We sought to determine the sensitivity of femoral ultrasound for coronary artery disease. In this prospective, cross-sectional study, participants (n = 124) underwent ankle-brachial index measurement and femoral ultrasound for assessment of intima-media thickness, maximal plaque height, and total plaque area following coronary angiography. Receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve were plotted for identifying significant coronary artery disease (≥ 50% stenosis). Logistic regression was utilized to evaluate associations. 64% of participants had significant, angiography-confirmed coronary artery disease. Femoral ultrasound plaque area yielded the highest area under the curve for detecting significant coronary disease (area under the curve = 0.731). In contrast, an abnormal ankle-brachial index (≤ 0.90) produced an area under the curve of 0.568. Femoral ultrasound had a higher sensitivity (85%) than the ankle-brachial index (25%) for ruling out significant coronary artery disease. Both ankle-brachial index and femoral ultrasound have similar capacity to detect peripheral artery disease. Femoral ultrasound has a significantly greater discriminatory power than ankle-brachial index to detect clinically significant coronary artery disease. Ultrasound-captured femoral plaque burden directly delineates the extent of peripheral arterial disease and is better at ruling out significant coronary atherosclerosis than the ankle-brachial index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thus, some initial research stated that most patients had some cardiovascular involvement after COVID-19 infection, even asymptomatic patients. Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns during the registry development, patients were past 14 days of confirmed COVID-19 infection by a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test before they had an echocardiogram. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose of Review: With limitations of cardiovascular disease risk stratification by traditional risk factors, the role of noninvasive imaging techniques, such as vascular ultrasound, has emerged as a prominent utility for decision-making in coronary artery disease. A review of current guidelines and contemporary approaches for carotid and femoral plaque assessment is needed to better inform the diagnosis, management, and treatment of atherosclerosis in clinical practice. Recent Findings: The recent consensus-based guidelines for carotid plaque assessment in coronary artery disease have been established, supported by some outcomes-based research. Currently, there is a gap of evidence on the use of femoral ultrasound to detect atherosclerosis, as well as predict adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Summary: The quantification and characterization of individualized plaque burden are important to stratify risk in asymptomatic or symptomatic atherosclerosis patients. Standardized quantification guidelines, supported by further outcomes-based research, are required to assess disease severity and progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]