Atrial Septal Defect and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke in the Perioperative Period of Noncardiac Surgery

© 2019 Stroke is a serious complication of noncardiac surgery. Congenital defects of the interatrial septum may be a potent risk factor for perioperative stroke. The aim of the present study was to determine the association between atrial septal defect (ASD) or patent foramen ovale (PFO) and in-hospital perioperative ischemic stroke after non-cardiac surgery in a large nationwide cohort of patients hospitalized in the United States. Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery between 2004 and 2014 were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project\u27s National Inpatient Sample. Patients without an in-hospital echocardiogram were excluded. The presence of an ostium secundum-type ASD or PFO was identified by ICD-9 diagnosis code 745.5. The primary study outcome was perioperative acute ischemic stroke. Between 2004 and 2014, there were 639,985 admissions for noncardiac surgery with an in-hospital echocardiogram. An ASD or PFO was documented in 9,041 (1.4%) hospitalizations. Perioperative ischemic stroke occurred more frequently in patients with an ASD or PFO compared with those without an ASD or PFO (35.1% vs 6.0%, p \u3c0.001). The association between ASD or PFO and ischemic stroke persisted after adjustment for demographics and clinical covariates (adjusted odds ratio 6.30, 95% confidence interval, 5.59 to 7.10) and in all non-cardiac surgery subtypes. In conclusion, in a large, nationwide analysis of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, a diagnosis of ASD or PFO was associated with an increased risk of acute ischemic stroke overall and in all surgical subtypes. Additional measures are necessary to mitigate stroke risk in patients with septal defects who are planned for non-cardiac surgery

Thrombosis in hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections versus COVID-19

© 2020 We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses nationwide from 2012 to 2014 and compared this to the incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large health system in New York. Non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness was complicated by acute MI in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (5% vs 16%; P\u3c .001). Background: Thrombosis is a prominent feature of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The incidence of thrombosis during hospitalization for non-COVID-19 viral respiratory infections is uncertain. We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses compared to COVID-19. Methods: Adults age \u3e18 years hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness between 2002 and 2014 were identified. The primary study outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events, including myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism (VTE), as defined by ICD-9 codes. The incidence of thrombosis in non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illnesses was compared to the recently published incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 from 3,334 patients hospitalized in New York in 2020. Results: Among 954,521 hospitalizations with viral pneumonia from 2002 to 2014 (mean age 62.3 years, 57.1% female), the combined incidence of arterial and venous thrombosis was 5.0%. Acute MI occurred in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. Patients with thrombosis had higher in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs 3.3%, P\u3c .001) than those without thrombosis. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (median age 64; 39.6% female) in 2020 (5% vs 16%; P\u3c .001) Conclusion: In a nationwide analysis of hospitalizations for viral pneumonias, thrombosis risk was lower than that observed in patients with COVID-19. Investigations into mechanisms of thrombosis and risk reduction strategies in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections are necessary

Risk of thrombotic events after respiratory infection requiring hospitalization

© 2021, The Author(s). Thrombosis is a major concern in respiratory infections. Our aim was to investigate the magnitude and duration of risk for arterial and venous thrombosis following discharge after respiratory infection. Patients with respiratory infections were identified using the United States Nationwide Readmission Database from 2012 to 2014. Patients admitted with asthma or cellulitis served as comparators. Readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (MI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were evaluated at 30 to 180 days. The likelihood of a first thrombotic event after discharge was compared with a 30-day period prior to hospitalization. Among 5,271,068 patients discharged after a respiratory infection, 0.56% and 0.78% were readmitted within 30-days with MI and VTE, respectively. Relative to asthma and cellulitis, respiratory infection was associated with a greater age and sex-adjusted hazard of 30-day readmission for MI (adjusted HR [aHR] 1.48 [95% CI 1.42–1.54] vs. asthma; aHR 1.36 [95% CI 1.31–1.41] vs. cellulitis) and VTE (aHR 1.28 [95% CI 1.24–1.33] vs. asthma; aHR 1.26, [95% CI 1.22–1.30] vs. cellulitis). Risks of MI and VTE attenuated over time. In a crossover-cohort analysis, the odds of MI (OR 1.68 [95% CI 1.62–1.73]) and VTE (OR 3.30 [95% 3.19–3.41]) were higher in the 30 days following discharge after respiratory infection than during the 30-day baseline period. Hospitalization for respiratory infection was associated with increased risks of thrombosis that were highest in the first 30-days after discharge and declined over time

Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease (PD MED): A large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial

\ua9 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Background Whether initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease should consist of levodopa, dopamine agonists, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBI) is uncertain. We aimed to establish which of these three classes of drug, as initial treatment, provides the most effective long-term control of symptoms and best quality of life for people with early Parkinson\u27s disease. Methods In this pragmatic, open-label randomised trial, patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson\u27s disease were randomly assigned (by telephone call to a central office; 1:1:1) between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or MAOBI) and levodopa alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were the mobility dimension on the 39-item patient-rated Parkinson\u27s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) quality-of-life scale (range 0-100 with six points defined as the minimally important difference) and cost-effectiveness. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN69812316. Findings Between Nov 9, 2000, and Dec 22, 2009, 1620 patients were assigned to study groups (528 to levodopa, 632 to dopamine agonist, 460 to MAOBI). With 3-year median follow-up, PDQ-39 mobility scores averaged 1\ub78 points (95% CI 0\ub75-3\ub70, p=0\ub7005) better in patients randomly assigned to levodopa than those assigned to levodopa-sparing therapy, with no increase or attrition of benefit during 7 years\u27 observation. PDQ-39 mobility scores were 1\ub74 points (95% CI 0\ub70-2\ub79, p=0\ub705) better in patients allocated MAOBI than in those allocated dopamine agonists. EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0\ub703 (95% CI 0\ub701-0\ub705; p=0\ub70002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0\ub781, 95% CI 0\ub761-1\ub708, p=0\ub714), admissions to institutions (0\ub786, 0\ub763-1\ub718; p=0\ub74), and death (0\ub785, 0\ub769-1\ub706, p=0\ub717) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p<0\ub70001). Interpretation Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. MAOBI as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was at least as effective as dopamine agonists. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and UK Department of Health