Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious medical condition that can lead to severe morbidity and mortality, making it a significant public health concern. VTE is a multifactorial condition that results from the interaction of genetic, acquired, and environmental factors. Physiological changes during pregnancy increase the risk of VTE as they express Virchow’s triad (increased coagulation factors, decreased fibrinolysis, trauma, and venous stasis). Moreover, pregnancy-related risk factors, such as advanced maternal age, obesity, multiple gestations, and cesarean delivery, further increase the risk of VTE. Managing VTE in pregnancy is challenging due to the complexity of balancing the risks and benefits of anticoagulant therapy for both the mother and the fetus. A multidisciplinary approach involving obstetricians, hematologists, and neonatologists, is necessary to ensure optimal outcomes for both the mother and baby. This review aims to discuss the current challenges associated with VTE in pregnancy and identify potential solutions for improving outcomes for pregnant women at risk for VTE.

Acute lower extremity proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) requires accurate diagnosis and treatment in order to prevent embolization and other complications. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), a clinician performed, and clinician interpreted bedside ultrasound examination has been increasingly used for DVT evaluation mainly in the urgent and critical care setting, but also in the ambulatory clinics and the medical wards. Studies have demonstrated that POCUS has excellent diagnostic accuracy for acute proximal DVT when performed by well-trained users. However, there is significant heterogeneity among studies on the necessary extent of training and universally acceptable standardized education protocols are needed. In this review, we summarize the evidence that supports the use of POCUS to diagnose acute proximal DVT and focus on methodology and current technology, sensitivity and specificity, pre-test probability and the role of D-dimer, time and resources, education, limitations, and future directions.

Since their introduction in 1958, traditional cardiac pacemakers have undergone considerable upgrades over the years, but they continue to have a complication rate of ∼3.8%–12.4%. There are no randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of leadless pacemakers (LPM) with single-chamber transvenous pacemakers (TV-VVI). The aim is to assess the differences in the procedural complications and in-hospital outcomes between LPM and TV-VVI implants. We queried the national inpatient database from 2016 to 2019 to include adult patients undergoing LPM and TV-VVI. Admissions for leadless and single-lead transvenous pacemakers were identified by their appropriate ICD-10 codes. Complications were identified using ICD-10 codes that mostly represent initial encounter. The difference in outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and 1:1 propensity score matching between the two cohorts. Thirty-five thousand four hundred thirty expanded samples of admissions were retrieved of which 27 650 (78%) underwent TV-VVI with a mean age 81.3 ± 9.4 years and 7780 (22%) underwent LPM with a mean age of 77.1 ± 12.1 years. The LPM group had a higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.63, 95% CI (1.29–2.05), P < 0.001], vascular complications [aOR: 7.54, 95% CI (3.21–17.68), P < 0.001], venous thromboembolism [aOR: 3.67, 95% CI (2.68–5.02), P < 0.001], cardiac complications [aOR: 1.79, 95% CI (1.59–2.03), P < 0.001], device thrombus formation [aOR: 5.03, 95% CI (2.55–9.92), P < 0.001], and need for a blood transfusion [aOR: 1.54, 95% CI (1.14–2.07), P < 0.005]. The TV-VVI group had higher likelihood of in-hospital pulmonary complications [aOR:0.68, 95% CI (0.54–0.87), P < 0.002] and had a need for device revisions [aOR:0.42, 95% CI (0.23–0.76), P < 0.004]. There is a higher likelihood of all-cause in-hospital mortality and complications following LPM implantation in comparison to TV-VVI. This could be related to higher co-morbidities in the LPM group. Clinical trials aimed to accurately compare these two groups should be undertaken.

Numerous longitudinal studies suggest a strong association between cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive impairment. Individuals with atrial fibrillation are at higher risk of dementia and cognitive dysfunction, as atrial fibrillation increases the risk of cerebral hypoperfusion, inflammation, and stroke. The lack of comprehensive understanding of the observed association and the complex relationship between these two diseases makes it very hard to provide robust guidelines on therapeutic indications. With this review, we attempt to shed some light on how atrial fibrillation is related to dementia, what we know regarding preventive interventions, and how we could move forward in managing those very frequently overlapping conditions.

Background: COVID-19 has been frequently associated with an increased risk of thrombotic complications. There have also been reports of an increased likelihood of stroke, although its true incidence in patients with COVID-19 is currently unknown. Methods: Electronic databases PubMed and Scopus were searched from inception up to July 30, 2021 to identify randomized controlled studies in patients with confirmed COVID-19 undergoing one or more interventions. Studies were screened for eligibility using a predefined inclusion criterion and selected using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and heterogeneity was assessed using I-squared test. Results: Out of 3960 potentially eligible articles, 77 randomized studies (38 732 patients) were included. Mean age of the study population was 55±9.3 years. Females constituted 38% of the study population and mean duration of follow-up after study enrollment was 23±12.9 days. Cumulative incidence of stroke in the overall study population was 0.001 (95% CI, 0.001–0.002) with a total of 65 events in 38 732 patients, corresponding to an absolute incidence of 0.168%. Incidence of stroke in the inpatient population was 0.001 (95% CI, 0.001–0.002; 65 events in 37 069 patients), corresponding to an absolute incidence of 0.175%. No strokes were observed in the outpatient setting. Conclusions: The overall incidence of stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be lower than that reported in previous observational reports.