Heart failure exacerbations impart significant morbidity and mortality, however, large- scale studies assessing outcomes in the setting of concurrent coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are limited. We utilized National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to compare clinical outcomes in patients admitted with acute congestive heart failure exacerbation (CHF) with and without COVID-19 infection. A total of 2,101,980 patients (Acute CHF without COVID-19 (n = 2,026,765 (96.4%) and acute CHF with COVID-19 (n = 75,215, 3.6%)) were identified. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to compared outcomes and were adjusted for age, sex, race, income level, insurance status, discharge quarter, Elixhauser co-morbidities, hospital location, teaching status and bed size. Patients with acute CHF and COVID-19 had higher in-hospital mortality compared to patients with acute CHF alone (25.78% vs. 5.47%, adjust OR (aOR) 6.3 (95% CI 6.05–6.62, p < 0.001)) and higher rates of vasopressor use (4.87% vs. 2.54%, aOR 2.06 (95% CI 1.86–2.27, p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (31.26% vs. 17.14%, aOR 2.3 (95% CI 2.25–2.44, p < 0.001)), sudden cardiac arrest (5.73% vs. 2.88%, aOR 1.95 (95% CI 1.79–2.12, p < 0.001)), and acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (5.56% vs. 2.94%, aOR 1.92 (95% CI 1.77–2.09, p < 0.001)). Moreover, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (26.87% vs. 24.5%, adjusted OR 1.26 (95% CI 1.16–1.36, p < 0.001)) with increased incidence of vasopressor use, sudden cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock as compared to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Furthermore, elderly patients and patients with African-American and Hispanic descents had higher in-hospital mortality. Acute CHF with COVID-19 is associated with higher in-hospital mortality, vasopressor use, mechanical ventilation, and end organ dysfunction such as kidney failure and cardiac arrest.

Venous thromboembolism, in particular, pulmonary embolism (PE), is a significant contributor to the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. In this study, we utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database 2020 to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with and without PE. Our sample includes 1,659,040 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia between January 2020 and December 2020. We performed propensity-matched analysis for patient characteristics and in-hospital outcomes, including the patient’s age, race, sex, insurance status, median income, length of stay, mortality, hospitalization cost, comorbidities, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor support. Patients with COVID-19 with PE had a higher need for mechanical ventilation (25.7% vs. 15.6%, adjusted odds ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.4–1.5, p < 0.001), the vasopressor requirement (5.4% vs. 2.6%, adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4–1.8, p < 0.001), longer hospital stays (10.8 vs. 7.9 days, p < 0.001), and overall higher in-hospital mortality (19.1 vs. 13.9%, adjusted OR of 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5, p < 0.001). This study highlights the need for more aggressive management of PE in COVID-19-positive patients with the aim to improve early diagnosis and treatment to reduce morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs seen in the synchronous COVID-19 and PE-positive patients.

Gender equality, with an emphasis on female education, has been designated by the United Nations as one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be completed by 2030, since gender disparity is a major impediment to scientific and economic progress. This study was carried out in an effort to address the gender gaps that can be seen in academic and scientific publications. The purpose of this study is to describe the gender distribution of editorial board members and editors-in-chief across geriatrics journals with high impact factors. Clarivate Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 were used to guide the selection of geriatric and gerontology journals utilizing Scopus All Science Journal Classification Codes. The genders of the editors-in-chief and editorial board members were determined and analyzed using publicly accessible data. A total of 47 geriatric journals with an average impact factor of 4.27 were examined. Of the 65 editors-in-chief, 21 (32%) were women, whereas 876 female editorial members were found out of a total of 2414, which constitutes 36% in total. Despite making up 60% of the geriatric medical workforce, women are still underrepresented on editorial boards and as chief editors in well-known geriatric periodicals.