BackgroundAlthough cardiac injury has been reported in patients with various neurological conditions, few data report cardiac injury in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The aim of this work is to report the incidence of cardiac injury in patients with TBI and its impact on patient outcome.MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted on a cohort of 50 patients with severe TBI. Only patients with isolated severe TBI defined as Glascow coma scale (GCS) < 8 were included in the study. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, GCS, hemodynamic data, serum Troponin I, electrocardiogram (ECG), and echocardiographic examination, and patients’ outcome were recorded. A neurogenic cardiac injury score (NCIS) was calculated for all patients (rising troponin = 1, abnormal echocardiography = 1, hypotension = 1). Univariate and multivariate analyses for risk factors for mortality were done for all risk factors.Results and discussionFifty patients were included; age was 31 ± 12, APACHE II was 21 ± 5, and male patients were 45 (90 %). Troponin I was elevated in 27 (54 %) patients, abnormal echocardiography and hypotension were documented in 14 (28 %) and 16 (32 %) patients, respectively. The in-hospital mortality was 36 %. Risk factors for mortality by univariate analysis were age, GCS, APACHE II score, serum troponin level, NCIS, and hypotension. However, in multivariate analysis, the only two independent risk factors for mortality were APACHE II score (OR = 1.25, 95 % confidence interval: 1.02–1.54, P = 0.03) and NCIS score (OR = 8.38, 95 % confidence interval: 1.44–48.74, P = 0.018).ConclusionsCardiac injury is common in patients with TBI and is associated with increased mortality. The association of high NCIS and poor outcome in these patients warrants a further larger study.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has impacted the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are already under strain due to population growth and insufficient resources. Since the COVID-19 pandemic's emergence, there has been an urgent need for a rapid and adequate reaction to the pandemic's disruption of healthcare systems. To this end, telemedicine has been shown in prior research to be a feasible approach. The overarching objective of this scoping review was to determine the extent and acceptance of telemedicine in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework to identify available evidence. We systematically searched four academic databases for peer-reviewed literature published between January 2020 and April 2021: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as Google Scholar as a source for grey literature.ResultsThe search identified 54 articles with 45,843 participants, including 6,966 healthcare professionals and 36,877 healthcare users. We identified a range of reasons for introducing telemedicine in LMICs during COVID-19, most notably to maintain non-emergency healthcare, enhance access to healthcare providers, and reduce the risk of infection among health users and providers. Overall, healthcare providers and users have shown a high level of acceptance for telemedicine services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine provided access to healthcare in the majority of included articles. Nonetheless, some challenges to accepting telemedicine as a method of healthcare delivery have been reported, including technological, regulatory, and economical challenges.ConclusionTelemedicine was found to improve access to high-quality healthcare and decrease infection risk in LMICs during COVID-19. In general, infrastructure and regulatory barriers found to be the most significant barriers to wider telemedicine use, and should be considered when implementing telemedicine more broadly. There appears to be a need to prioritize patient data safety, as many healthcare practitioners utilized commercial apps and services as telemedicine systems. Additionally, it appears as though there is a need to increase capacity, skill, and transparency, as well as to educate patients about telemedicine.

No abstract

Background Aortic root abscess (ARA) is a major complication of infective endocarditis that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Limited data are present about patient characteristics and outcomes in this lethal disease. We aimed to study the clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with ARA compared to patients with left-sided infective endocarditis without ARA. We included patients with a definite diagnosis of left-sided infective endocarditis according to modified Duke’s criteria. The patients were classified into two groups according to the presence of ARA (ARA and NO-ARA groups). All the patients were studied regarding their demographic data, clinical characteristics, laboratory and imaging data, and complications. Results We included 285 patients with left-sided infective endocarditis. The incidence of ARA was 21.4% (61 patients). Underlying heart disease, mechanical prosthesis, bicuspid aortic valve, and prior IE were significantly higher in ARA. The level of CRP was higher in ARA (p = 0.03). ARA group showed more aortic valve vegetations (73.8% vs. 37.1%, p < 0.001), more aortic paravalvular leakage (26.7% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), and less mitral valve vegetations (21.3% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of ARA increased in the following conditions: aortic paravalvular leak (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.2–13, p = 0.03), mechanical prosthesis (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5–8.7, p = 0.005), aortic valve vegetations (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2–8.0, p = 0.02), and undetected organism (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1–4.6, p = 0.02), while the odds of ARA decreased with mitral valve vegetations (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.08–0.5, p = 0.001). We did not find a difference between both groups regarding the incidence of major complications, including in-hospital mortality. Conclusion In our study, ARA occurred in one fifth of patients with left-sided IE. Patients with mechanical prosthesis, aortic paravalvular leakage, aortic vegetations, and undetected organisms had higher odds of ARA, while patients with mitral vegetations had lower odds of ARA.