BackgroundInsertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) is common practice in critical care medicine. Complications arising from CVC placement are mostly due to a pneumothorax or malposition. Correct position is currently confirmed by chest x-ray, while ultrasonography might be a more suitable option. We performed a meta-analysis of the available studies with the primary aim of synthesizing information regarding detection of CVC-related complications and misplacement using ultrasound (US).MethodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis registered at PROSPERO (CRD42016050698). PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Articles which reported the diagnostic accuracy of US in detecting the position of CVCs and the mechanical complications associated with insertion were included. Primary outcomes were specificity and sensitivity of US. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of malposition and pneumothorax, feasibility of US examination, and time to perform and interpret both US and chest x-ray. A qualitative assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool.ResultsWe included 25 studies with a total of 2548 patients and 2602 CVC placements. Analysis yielded a pooled specificity of 98.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 97.8–99.5) and sensitivity of 68.2 (95% CI: 54.4–79.4). US examination was feasible in 96.8% of the cases. The prevalence of CVC malposition and pneumothorax was 6.8% and 1.1%, respectively. The mean time for US performance was 2.83 min (95% CI: 2.77–2.89 min) min, while chest x-ray performance took 34.7 min (95% CI: 32.6–36.7 min). US was feasible in 97%. Further analyses were performed by defining subgroups based on the different utilized US protocols and on intra-atrial and extra-atrial misplacement. Vascular US combined with transthoracic echocardiography was most accurate.ConclusionsUS is an accurate and feasible diagnostic modality to detect CVC malposition and iatrogenic pneumothorax. Advantages of US over chest x-ray are that it can be performed faster and does not subject patients to radiation. Vascular US combined with transthoracic echocardiography is advised. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution since included studies were often underpowered and had methodological limitations. A large multicenter study investigating optimal US protocol, among other things, is needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-1989-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The risk for developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is 1.5 times higher compared to the general population. This risk is partly due to the contribution of systemic inflammation in increased atherogenesis, while an increased prevalence of “traditional” cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, is also attributed to nearly 50% of the total CVD risk. Most anti-rheumatic medication partly reduces this CVD risk, primarily by reducing inflammation. The increased risk is recognized by most guidelines, which advise consequent screening and multiplying calculated risk scores by 1.5. However, screening in daily clinical practice is poorly done, and RA patients often have undiagnosed and untreated risk factors. In conclusion, even nowadays, RA patients still have an increased risk of developing CVD. Advances in anti-inflammatory treatment partly mitigate this risk, but RA patients need mandatory screening for CV risk factors to turn their CVD risk towards that of the general population.

No abstract

Background:Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are at a higher risk for developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) than the general population. This increased risk is partly due to a higher incidence of traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, and partly due to the underlying systemic inflammation. During the past two decades, the burden of the systemic inflammation has been reduced by more efficacious anti-inflammatory treatment, which somewhat attenuated the increased CV risk of rheumatic patients. However, it remains important to monitor the effects of these new treatment strategies on the prevalence of CVD in patients with a rheumatic disease in systematically controlled cohorts.Objectives:The aim of the current report was to evaluate whether the CV risk of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases still differs from the general population, despite advances In anti-rheumatic treatment strategies.Methods:In March 2020, all adult patients with an inflammatory rheumatic disease from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, location “Reade” were systematically asked to participate in a prospective cohort study. The primary aim of this study was to monitor the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases compared to age and sex matched healthy controls. Between April 26, 2020 and May 27, 2020, participants completed the first online questionnaire of the study. Amongst others, information on demographic data, including CV comorbidities and risk factors, and medication use was collected. The baseline characteristics and prevalence of CVD were compared between RA, PsA or AS and healthy controls.Results:In total, 1455 consecutive patients with an inflammatory rheumatic disease (979 RA patients, 261 PsA patients and 215 AS patients), and 414 healthy controls completed the first questionnaire, as shown in table 1. CV comorbidities were more frequently reported in RA, PsA and AS patients compared to healthy controls; 107 (11%), 28 (11%) and 22 (10%) compared to 30 (7%), respectively.Table 1.Biological DMARD usage in RA, PsA and AS patientsPatient characteristicsAll patients (n=1455)RA (n=979)PsA (N=261)AS (n=215)Controls (n=414)Mean age - yr55 ± 1358 ± 1255 ± 1348 ± 1353 ± 13Female sex - no (%)934 (64)728 (74)119 (46)87 (41)298 (72)BMI (IQR)25 (23-28)25 (22-28)26 (24-30)25 (22-28)24 (22-27)Smoking - no (%)178 (12)126 (13)17 (7)35 (16)34 (8)Cardiovascular disease – no (%)157 (11)107 (11)28 (11)22 (10)30 (7)Rheumatic medication - no (%)csDMARDs877 (60)712 (73)148 (57)17 (8)N.A.Oral glucocorticoids161 (11)139 (14)17 (7)5 (2)2 (0.4)TNF inhibitor563 (39)336 (34)121 (46)106 (49)N.A.IL-6 inhibitor19 (1)19 (2)00N.A.IL-17 inhibitor17 (1)2 (0.2)7 (3)8 (4)N.A.Table 1. Baseline characteristics. Values are displayed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), median with interquartile range (IQR) or frequencies with percentages (%). RA = rheumatoid arthritis, PsA = psoriatic arthritis, AS = ankylosing spondylitis, BMI = body mass index, TNF = anti-tumor necrosis factor, IL = interleukin.Conclusion:We demonstrated that the prevalence of CVD is approximately 1.5 times higher in patients with rheumatic diseases compared to healthy controls (11% vs. 7%, respectively). This corresponds with previous research, although the reported prevalence of CVD in PsA and AS patients is even higher compared to prior studies. This suggests that the CVD risk of patients with rheumatic diseases is still elevated in 2020 compared to the general population, despite the improved management of rheumatic disease activity. Therefore, adequate and timely treatment of CV risk factors remains relevant, not only in patients with RA, but in patients other rheumatic diseases as well.References:[1]Hooijberg F et al. (2020) Patients with rheumatic diseases adhere to COVID-19 isolation measures more strictly than the general population. The Lancet rheumatology 2(10), 583-585.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

No abstract