Background/Objectives: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a critical valvular heart disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality if not managed promptly. Previous studies have highlighted the “weekend effect”, where the day of admission impacts outcomes in various cardiac conditions. This study evaluates the impact of weekend versus weekday admissions on outcomes in patients admitted with acutely decompensated aortic stenosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database, focusing on patients emergently admitted with decompensated aortic stenosis. Patient outcomes were compared between those admitted on weekends (midnight Friday to midnight Sunday) and weekdays. Results: Among 94,320 patients included, 4537 (4.81%) were admitted on weekends. Weekend admissions were associated with significantly higher mortality (aOR 1.86; 95% CI 1.27–2.74) and longer hospital stays (mean increase 3.18 days; p < 0.001) compared to weekday admissions. Complication rates were also higher on weekends, including cardiogenic shock (aOR 2.1; 95% CI 1.54–2.87; p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR 2.48; 95% CI 2.09–2.94; p < 0.001), and acute respiratory failure (aOR 2.88; 95% CI 2.38–3.49; p < 0.001). Additionally, weekend admissions had lower rates of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (aOR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40–0.62; p < 0.01) than weekday admissions. Conclusions: Patients with aortic stenosis admitted on weekends face significantly higher mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased complication rates compared to weekday admissions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) rates were also lower for patients admitted on weekends. The “weekend effect” markedly influences outcomes, underscoring the need for hospital and administrative strategies to mitigate these adverse effects. Implementing standardized protocols and optimizing resource allocation during weekends could potentially reduce mortality and improve patient outcomes, offering a path to more equitable healthcare delivery.

Older adults remain highly vulnerable to serious influenza-related complications despite routine vaccination. Whether high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (HD-QIV) offers greater protection than standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (SD-QIV) against clinically important outcomes remains an important question. We conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HD-QIV with SD-QIV in adults aged 65 years or older. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched up to February 2026. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed according to baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. Four RCTs comprising 511,890 participants were included. HD-QIV was associated with significantly lower odds of cardio-respiratory hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.90-0.97]) and cardiovascular hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI [0.89-0.98]), with no significant reduction in respiratory hospitalization (OR 0.90, 95% CI [0.80-1.01]). Significant reductions were also observed for hospitalization due to influenza (OR 0.61, 95% CI [0.50-0.74]), laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (OR 0.69, 95% CI [0.56-0.86]), and heart failure hospitalization (OR 0.80, 95% CI [0.69-0.94]). No significant differences were found for all-cause hospitalization (P = 0.12), all-cause mortality (P = 0.413), myocardial infarction (P = 0.753), or serious adverse events (P = 0.419). No significant subgroup differences were observed according to baseline CVD status. In older adults, HD-QIV was associated with modest but significant reductions in cardio-respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalization, as well as influenza-related and heart failure hospitalizations, without an apparent safety penalty. These findings support preferential use of high-dose influenza vaccination in this population.

Please view the PDF to see the formatted meeting

Translation: The University of Toledo Journal of Medical Sciences is the online journal launched by the University of Toledo. Manuscripts will be considered on the understanding that they report original work and are not under consideration for publication by any other journal. The journal publishes original articles reporting experimental results of basic or clinical research, case reports, and reviews. The journal uses a single blind peer review system and each manuscript, based on the results presented in its original submission, will be evaluated by two student reviewers and one faculty reviewer. This process will provide an opportunity for medical students, graduate students, residents, fellows and faculty to publish research observation in a timely manner.