Frontliners on the move : a quantitative analysis of the prevalence of COVID-19 reinfection among healthcare workers

This study was conducted to review relevant articles and demonstrate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reinfection among healthcare workers (HCWs). A systemic search was conducted on PubMed and Medline from their inception to July 17, 2021. All statistical analyses were conducted using ReviewManager 5.4.1. Studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected: (a) articles having HCWs with COVID-19; (b) studies describing reinfection of COVID-19; and (c) articles having a defined number of patients and controls. Three studies were selected for meta-analysis. The Newcastle- Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the cohort studies. NOS scores of 1-5 were considered high risk for bias, scores of 6-7 were deemed moderate, and scores >7 were considered low risk for bias. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was seen to pool the studies, and the results were reported in inverse variance (IV) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled prevalence of reinfection of COVID-19 in HCWs was 3% (OR: 0.03 [-0.04, 0.01]; p=0.44; I2=4%). A non-significant prevalence was found among the healthcare professionals in terms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection in Europe. The preformed antibodies were protective against reinfection. However, the waning of antibodies with respect to time was evident, varying differently in different individuals, thereby resulting in reinfection.https://www.cureus.comam2023Internal Medicin

Role of Intravascular Ultrasound in Pulmonary Embolism Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review

Background: Traditionally, mechanical thrombectomy performed for pulmonary embolism (PE) necessitates the utilization of iodinated contrast. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been used as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the management of acute high and intermediate-risk PE. Recently, with the shortage of contrast supplies and the considerable incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI), other safer and more feasible IVUS methods have become desirable. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the importance of IVUS in patients with PE undergoing thrombectomy. Methods: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for review studies, case reports, and case series. Clinical characteristics, outcomes and the usage of IVUS-guided mechanical thrombectomy during the treatment of acute high and intermediate-risk PE were examined in a descriptive analysis. Results: In this systematic review, we included one prospective study, two case series, and two case reports from July 2019 to May 2023. A total of 39 patients were evaluated; most were female (53.8%). The main presenting symptoms were dyspnea and chest pain (79.5%); three patients (7.9%) presented with syncope, one with shock and one with cardiac arrest. Biomarkers (troponin and BNP) were elevated in 94.6% of patients. Most patients (87.2%) had intermediate-risk PE, and 12.8% had high-risk PE. All patients presented with right-heart strain (RV/LV ratio ≥ 0.9, n = 39). Most patients (56.4%) had bilateral PE. Mechanical thrombectomy was performed using IVUS without contrast utilization in 39.4% of the patients. After the initial learning curve, contrast usage decreased gradually over time. There was a significant decrease in the composite mean arterial pressure immediately following IVUS-guided thrombectomy from 35.1 ± 7.2 to 25.2 ± 8.3 mmHg (p < 0.001). Post-procedure, there was no reported (0%) CI-AKI, no all-cause mortality, no major bleeding, or other adverse events. There was a significant improvement in symptoms and RV function at the mean follow-up. Conclusions: New evidence suggests that IVUS-guided mechanical thrombectomy is safe, with visualization of the thrombus for optimal intervention, and reduces contrast exposure

Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in early diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Introduction: As artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted diagnosis gained immense popularity, it is imperative to consider its utility and efficiency in the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), responsible for over 1.8 million cases and 881 000 deaths globally, as reported in 2018. Improved adenoma detection rate, as well as better characterizations of polyps, are significant advantages of AI-assisted colonoscopy (AIC). This systematic review (SR) investigates the effectiveness of AIC in the early diagnosis of CRC as compared to conventional colonoscopy. Materials and methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were reviewed for original studies (randomized controlled trials, observational studies), SRs, and meta-analysis between 2017 and 2022 utilizing Medical Subject Headings terminology in a broad search strategy. All searches were performed and analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and were conducted from November 2022. A data extraction form based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review group's extraction template for quality assessment and evidence synthesis was used for data extraction. All included studies considered for bias and ethical criteria and provided valuable evidence to answer the research question. Results: The database search identified 218 studies, including 87 from PubMed, 60 from SCOPUS, and 71 from Web of Science databases. The retrieved studies from the databases were imported to Rayyan software and a duplicate article check was performed, all duplicate articles were removed after careful evaluation of the data. The abstract and full-text screening was performed in accordance with the following eligibility criteria: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for review articles, ENTREQ for narrative studies; and modified JADAD for randomized controlled trials. This yielded 15 studies that met the requirements for this SR and were finally included in the review. Conclusion: AIC is a safe, highly effective screening tool that can increase the detection rate of adenomas, and polyps resulting in an early diagnosis of CRC in adults when compared to conventional colonoscopy. The results of this SR prompt further large-scale research to investigate the effectiveness in accordance with sex, race, and socioeconomic status, as well as its influence on prognosis and survival rate.</p