This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) quickly surged the whole world and affected people’s physical, mental, and social health thereby upsetting their quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the quality of life (QoL) of COVID-19 positive patients after recovery in Bangladesh. This was a study of adult (aged ≥18 years) COVID-19 individuals from eight divisions of Bangladesh diagnosed and confirmed by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) from June 2020 to November 2020. Given a response rate of 60% in a pilot study, a random list of 6400 COVID-19 patients was generated to recruit approximately 3200 patients from eight divisions of Bangladesh and finally a total of 3244 participants could be recruited for the current study. The validated Bangla version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire was used to assess the QoL. Data were analyzed by STATA (Version 16.1) and R (Version 4.0.0). All the procedures were conducted following ethical approval and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The mean scores of QoL were highest for the physical domain (68.25±14.45) followed by social (65.10±15.78), psychological (63.28±15.48), and environmental domain (62.77±13.07). Psychological and physical domain scores among females were significantly lower than the males (p<0.001). The overall quality of life was lower in persons having a chronic disease. Participants over 45 years of age were 52% less likely to enjoy good physical health than the participants aged below 26 years (AOR: 0.48, CI: 0.28–0.82). The quality of life of employed participants was found 1.8 times higher than the unemployed (AOR: 1.80, CI: 1.11–2.91). Those who were admitted to hospitals during infection had a low QoL score in physical, psychological, and socials domains. However, QoL improved in all aspect except the psychological domain for each day passed after the diagnosis. These findings call for a focus on the quality of life of the COVID-19 affected population, with special emphasis given to females, older adults, unemployed, and people with comorbidities.

ABO blood groups is a cheap and affordable test that can be immediately retrieved from COVID-19 patients at the diagnosis. There is increasing evidence that non-O blood groups have both higher susceptibility and higher severity of COVID-19 infections. The reason behind such relationship seems elusive. Regarding susceptibility, Non-O individuals have Anti-A antibodies which can prevent viral entry across ACE-2 receptors, moreover, Non-O individuals are at higher risk of autoimmunity, hypercoagulable state, and dysbiosis resulting in an augmented tendency for vascular inflammatory sequelae of COVID-19. We can conclude, on the diagnostic level, that ABO blood groups can be potentially used for risk stratification of affected COVID-19 patients, to anticipate the deterioration of patients at higher risk for complications. On a therapeutic level, plasma from normal O blood group individuals might potentially replace the use of convalescent serum for the treatment of COVID-19.

There is significant variation in practice patterns in managing congenital aortic valve stenosis. Review of medical literature reveals no significant information regarding the current practice methods in the treatment of a simple lesion such as aortic stenosis (AS). Therefore, this survey-based study was conducted in an attempt to better understand the uniformity or heterogeneity of practice in treating AS. A questionnaire was prepared to evaluate the style of management of AS. This survey was designed to assess the practice of follow-up visitations, type and frequency of investigative studies, pharmacological therapy, and exercise recommendations. Questions about therapeutic intervention included those of timing and type of intervention. Questionnaires were sent to all academic pediatric cardiology programs in the United States (48 program) and selected international programs from Europe, Asia, and Australasia (19 program). The total number of surveys sent out was 67, and the total number of respondents was 25 (37%), 15 (31%) from the United States and 9 (53%) from outside the United States. The definition of moderate AS varied among respondents. The range provided for mild AS was identified as that with a peak-to-peak pressure gradient of < 25-30 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of < 36-50 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of < 25-40 mmHg. On the other hand, severe AS was defined as that with a peak-to-peak gradient of > 50-60 mmHg, peak instantaneous Doppler gradient of > 64-80 mmHg, or mean Doppler gradient of > 45-64 mmHg. In assessing follow-up patterns, 84% of respondents recommended seeing patients with mild AS annually, the longest time of follow-up listed in the questionnaire, whereas 20% suggested follow-up every 6 months. There was no consensus among survey centers regarding follow-up of patients with moderate AS. For severe AS, 16% recommend immediate intervention, 16% arrange follow-up every 6 months, and 56 and 28% recommend follow-up in 3 and 1 month(s), respectively. In making the decision to proceed with biventricular versus univentricular repair in patients with AS in the neonatal period, many factors were considered. Ninety-two percent of respondents rely on mitral valve z score, 84% on aortic valve z score, 52% on left ventricle length, 48% on the presence of antegrade ascending aorta flow, and only 32% considered significant endocardial fibroelastosis as a factor. Rhodes score was used by 20% of respondents in decision making regarding the approach to management of this subset of AS. This study shows that there is consensus in the management of mild and severe forms of AS. As expected, disagreement is present in the definition, evaluation, and therapy of moderate aortic valve stenosis. There is a tendency for catheter intervention except in the presence of dysplastic aortic valve or moderate to severe aortic regurgitation. There is also disagreement regarding methods used to determine biventricular versus univentricular repair of a borderline hypoplastic left heart.

No abstract