The clinical efficacy of remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) monitoring is not well known. Digital databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model. Findings were reported as a point estimate with its 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 985 patients across seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with heart failure monitored with ReDS had significantly lower odds of hospital readmission compared with non-ReDS patients (OR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.56; z = 5.43 p = 0.000, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on the duration of follow-up showed a lower odd of readmission within 30 days (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.18-0.71; z = 2.93; p = 0.003; I2 5.7%), as well as between 1 and 3 months (OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.29-0.61; z = 4.54; p = 0.000; I2 = 0.0%). ReDS effect of lower readmissions of HF was observed irrespective of the duration of follow-up (<1-month vs 1-3 months). ReDS monitoring significantly lowers the odds of HF readmission within 3 months compared to participants not using ReDS.

Background: Studies comparing clinical outcomes with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) versus optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with coronary artery disease, including stable angina or acute coronary syndrome, are limited. Methods:We performed a detailed search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared cardiovascular outcomes of IVUS versus OCT. Data were aggregated for the primary outcome measure using the random-effects model as pooled risk ratio (RR).The primary outcome of interest was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stroke.Results: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 5917 patients (OCT n = 2075; IVUS n = 3842). OCT-PCI versus IVUS-guided PCI comparison yielded no statistically significant results for all the outcomes; MACE (RR 0.

No abstract

Introduction The safety of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) among COVID-19 patients has been controversial since the onset of the pandemic. Methods Digital databases were queried to study the safety of RAASi in COVID-19. The primary outcome of interest was mortality. The secondary outcome was seropositivity improvement/viral clearance, clinical manifestation progression, and progression to intensive care units. A random-effect model was used to compute an unadjusted odds ratio (OR). Results A total of 49 observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 83,269 COVID-19 patients (RAASi n = 34,691; non-RAASi n = 48,578). The mean age of the sample was 64, and 56% were males. We found that RAASi was associated with similar mortality outcomes as compared to non-RAASi groups (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99–1.15; p > 0.05). RAASi was associated with seropositivity improvement including negative RT-PCR or antibodies, (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93–0.99; p < 0.05). There was no association between RAASi versus control with progression to ICU admission (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79–1.23; p > 0.05) or higher odds of worsening of clinical manifestations (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97–1.11; p > 0.05). Metaregression analysis did not change our outcomes for effect modifiers including age, sex, comorbidities, RAASi type, or study type on outcomes. Conclusions COVID-19 is not a contraindication to hold or discontinue RAASi as they are not associated with higher mortality or worsening symptoms. Continuation of RAASi might be associated with favorable outcomes in COVID-19, including seropositivity/viral clearance. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40292-021-00462-w.