Search

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still developing worldwide. The prognosis of the disease will become worse and mortality will be even higher when it is combined with cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, COVID-19 is highly infectious and requires strict isolation measures. For acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a common cardiovascular disease, infection may aggravate the occurrence and development of ACS, making the management of more difficult. It will be an enormous challenge for clinical practice to deal with ACS in this setting of COVID-19. Aim to reduce the mortality of ACS patients during the epidemic of COVID-19 by standardizing procedures as much as possible. Pubmed and other relevant databases were searched to retrieve articles on COVID-19 and articles on ACS management strategies during previous influenza epidemics. The data was described and synthesized to summarize the diagnosis and management strategy of ACS, the preparation of catheter laboratory, and the protection of the medical staff in the context of COVID-19. Ethical approval is not required in this study, because it is a review with no recourse to patient identifiable information. Standardized diagnosis and treatment advice can help reduce the mortality of COVID-19 patients with ACS. In the absence of contraindications, the third generation of thrombolytic drugs should be the first choice for thrombolytic treatment in the isolation ward. For patients who have to receive PCI, this article provides detailed protective measures to avoid nosocomial infection.

Background and Objective: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) could take on a vital position when angiographic images are not clear enough to be precisely visualized or measured by computer-aided technology. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the benefits of IVUS-guided and angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) strategies for improving clinical outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from inception to 13th October, 2019. A comparative study of IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI strategies for patients with coronary bifurcation lesions was retrieved. The early endpoint events (≤1 year) and the late endpoint events (>1 years) were determined according to the follow-up time. The former included cardiac death, target lesion or vessel revascularization, stent thrombus, and major adverse cardiac events, while the latter included cardiac death. Statistical software Review Manager Version 5.3 was performed for meta-analysis. Results: Five studies involving7,830 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were included in this meta-analysis, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events for IVUS-guided strategy in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were lower than those of patients with angiography-guided strategy at the early follow-up(OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.70, P

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background: Drug-coated balloon as a novel therapeutic strategy has been used to treat restenosis in cases of bare metal and drug-eluting stents. However, evidence of its safety and efficacy is scarce in de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published up to October 17, 2018. Studies comparing the drug-coated balloon with the drug-eluting stent strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease (reference diameter

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background and objective: The modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies have been widely used in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, but what is the optimization has not been clearly defined. This meta-analysis is to elucidate the benefits from modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions. The clinical outcomes were divided into early (≤6 months) and late (>6 months) events according to the follow-up duration. The early endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and the late endpoints also include stent thrombosis in addition to the early endpoints index. The angiographic endpoint was in-stent restenosis. Data were analyzed by the statistical software RevMan (version 5.3). Results: A total of 6 studies involving 1683 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions were included in this meta-analysis, which found that the modified double-stent strategy was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.11–0.78, P = .01), myocardial infarction (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.21–0.82, P = .01), target lesion revascularization or target vessel revascularization (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15–0.63, P = .001), and MACE (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.74, P = .003) compared with provisional stenting in the early follow-up endpoint events, while the risk of cardiac death and stent thrombosis were similar between both strategies (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–1.10, P = .09; and OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.34–1.15, P = .13; respectively) in the late follow-up endpoint events. There were significant differences between both strategies in myocardial infarction (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.24–0.75, P = .003), MACE (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.31–0.62, P

Background and objective:The modified double-stent and provisional stenting strategies have been widely used in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, but what is the optimization has not been clearly defined. This meta-analysis is to elucidate the benefits from modified double-stent an

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Previous researches have reported the controversial results regarding the gender difference in clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate whether gender difference existed in patients with coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database were searched up to February 10, 2018. Studies comparing the gender-specific effect on clinical outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention were identified, to analyze mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and revascularization. Statistical software RevMan was utilized in this meta-analysis. RESULTS A total of 49 studies, involving 1,032,828 patients (774,115 males and 258,713 females) reporting gender-specific outcomes, were included in this study. The in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and at least 2-years mortality in male patients with coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention were significantly lower than those of females (odds ratio [OR] 0.58 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.63, P

Following a chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear incident, prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedure is essential for patients who suffer cardiac arrest. But CPR when wearing personal protection equipment (PPE) before decontamination becomes a challenge for healthcare workers (HCW). Although previous studies have assessed the impact of PPE on airway management, there is little research available regarding the quality of chest compression (CC) when wearing PPE.A present randomized cross-over simulation study was designed to evaluate the effect of PPE on CC performance using mannequins.The study was set in one university medical center in the China.Forty anesthesia residents participated in this randomized cross-over study.Each participant performed 2 min of CC on a manikin with and without PPE, respectively. Participants were randomized into 2 groups that either performed CC with PPE first, followed by a trial without PPE after a 180-min rest, or vice versa.CPR recording technology was used to objectively quantify the quality of CC. Additionally, participants' physiological parameters and subjective fatigue score values were recorded.With the use of PPE, a significant decrease of the percentage of effective compressions (41.3 ± 17.1% with PPE vs 67.5 ± 15.6% without PPE, P < 0.001) and the percentage of adequate compressions (67.7 ± 18.9% with PPE vs 80.7 ± 15.5% without PPE, P < 0.001) were observed. Furthermore, the increases in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and subjective fatigue score values were more obvious with the use of PPE (all P < 0.01).We found significant deterioration of CC performance in HCW with the use of a level-C PPE, which may be a disadvantage for enhancing survival of cardiac arrest.