Global cardiovascular research: Gaps and opportunities

Purpose of review: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. CVDs contribute to a large health and economic burden on a global scale. We aim to describe the current landscape of global cardiovascular research, highlight significant findings, and identify potential opportunities for further studies.Recent findings: There has been remarkable research output regarding cardiovascular health in recent decades. Large-scale collaborative studies have made impactful strides in identifying modifiable risk factors and forming evidence-based guidelines to facilitate improved cardiovascular care and outcomes. However, there are significant CVD disparities between high- and low- income countries which require interventions to mitigate these inequalities. Encouraging collaborative partnerships, strengthening research capacity in low-resource settings, and promoting equity in research are fundamental strategic approaches to help improve global cardiovascular research

Exploring the long-term disability outcomes in trauma patients: Study protocol

Objectives: Post-discharge patient-reported outcomes from trauma registries can be used to measure trauma care quality. However, studies reflecting the Asian experience are limited. Therefore, we aim to develop a digital trauma registry to prospectively capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at one-, three-, six-, and twelve-months post-injury in Pakistan.Methods: We will use a cohort study design to develop a digital trauma registry at two tertiary care facilities (Aga Khan University Hospital & Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center) in Karachi, Pakistan. The registry will include all admitted adult trauma patients (≥18 years). Data collection will be digital using tablets, with mortality, level of disability, and functional status, quality of life being the outcomes. Telephonic interviews will be conducted with the patients and caregivers for follow-up data collection.Discussion: The high disability burden following accidental trauma imposes a significant burden and cost on individuals and society. Therefore, the trauma registry would fill this gap by capturing post-discharge long-term PROs. It will provide the injured patient\u27s post-discharge situation, challenges, and future directions for incorporating long-term PROs in low-resource settings. Including long-term measures in routine follow-ups will provide insights into physical, social, and policy barriers and help advance injury care research

Which curve is better? A comparative analysis of trauma scoring systems in a South Asian country

Objectives: A diverse set of trauma scoring systems are used globally to predict outcomes and benchmark trauma systems. There is a significant potential benefit of using these scores in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, its standardized use based on type of injury is still limited. Our objective is to compare trauma scoring systems between neurotrauma and polytrauma patients to identify the better predictor of mortality in low-resource settings.Methods: Data were extracted from a digital, multicenter trauma registry implemented in South Asia for a secondary analysis. Adult patients (≥18 years) presenting with a traumatic injury from December 2021 to December 2022 were included in this study. Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Mechanism/GCS/Age/Pressure score and GCS/Age/Pressure score were calculated for each patient to predict in-hospital mortality. We used receiver operating characteristic curves to derive sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) for each score, including Glasgow Coma Scale (GCSResults :The mean age of 2007 patients included in this study was 41.2±17.8 years, with 49.1% patients presenting with neurotrauma. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 17.2%. GCS and RTS proved to be the best predictors of in-hospital mortality for neurotrauma (AUC: 0.885 and 0.874, respectively), while TRISS and ISS were better predictors for polytrauma patients (AUC: 0.729 and 0.722, respectively).Conclusion :Trauma scoring systems show differing predictability for in-hospital mortality depending on the type of trauma. Therefore, it is vital to take into account the region of body injury for provision of quality trauma care. Furthermore, context-specific and injury-specific use of these scores in LMICs can enable strengthening of their trauma system

Which curve is better? A comparative analysis of trauma scoring systems in a South Asian country

Objectives A diverse set of trauma scoring systems are used globally to predict outcomes and benchmark trauma systems. There is a significant potential benefit of using these scores in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, its standardized use based on type of injury is still limited. Our objective is to compare trauma scoring systems between neurotrauma and polytrauma patients to identify the better predictor of mortality in low-resource settings.Methods Data were extracted from a digital, multicenter trauma registry implemented in South Asia for a secondary analysis. Adult patients (≥18 years) presenting with a traumatic injury from December 2021 to December 2022 were included in this study. Injury Severity Score (ISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Mechanism/GCS/Age/Pressure score and GCS/Age/Pressure score were calculated for each patient to predict in-hospital mortality. We used receiver operating characteristic curves to derive sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) for each score, including Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).Results The mean age of 2007 patients included in this study was 41.2±17.8 years, with 49.1% patients presenting with neurotrauma. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 17.2%. GCS and RTS proved to be the best predictors of in-hospital mortality for neurotrauma (AUC: 0.885 and 0.874, respectively), while TRISS and ISS were better predictors for polytrauma patients (AUC: 0.729 and 0.722, respectively).Conclusion Trauma scoring systems show differing predictability for in-hospital mortality depending on the type of trauma. Therefore, it is vital to take into account the region of body injury for provision of quality trauma care. Furthermore, context-specific and injury-specific use of these scores in LMICs can enable strengthening of their trauma systems.Level of evidence Level III