Background: Electrocardiogram (ECG) is a widely accessible diagnostic tool that can easily be obtained on admission and can reduce excessive contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to evaluate the latest evidence on the association of ECG on admission and the poor outcomes in COVID‐19.Methods: A literature search was conducted on online databases for observational studies evaluating ECG parameters and composite poor outcomes comprising ICU admission, severe illness, and mortality in COVID‐19 patients.Results: A total of 2,539 patients from seven studies were included in this analysis. Pooled analysis showed that a longer corrected QT (QTc) interval and more frequent prolonged QTc interval were associated with composite poor outcome ([WMD 6.04 [2.62‐9.45], P = .001; I²:0%] and [RR 1.89 [1.52‐2.36], P < .001; I²:17%], respectively). Patients with poor outcome had a longer QRS duration and a faster heart rate compared with patients with good outcome ([WMD 2.03 [0.20‐3.87], P = .030; I²:46.1%] and [WMD 5.96 [0.96‐10.95], P = .019; I²:55.9%], respectively). The incidence of left bundle branch block (LBBB), premature atrial contraction (PAC), and premature ventricular contraction (PVC) were higher in patients with poor outcome ([RR 2.55 [1.19‐5.47], P = .016; I²:65.9%]; [RR 1.94 [1.32‐2.86], P = .001; I²:62.8%]; and [RR 1.84 [1.075‐3.17], P = .026; I²:70.6%], respectively). T‐wave inversion and ST‐depression were more frequent in patients with poor outcome ([RR 1.68 [1.31‐2.15], P < .001; I²:14.3%] and [RR 1.61 [1.31‐2.00], P < .001; I²:49.5%], respectively).Conclusion: Most ECG abnormalities on admission are significantly associated with an increased composite poor outcome in patients with COVID‐19.

Introduction: Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid diagnostic instrument for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, studies reported varied accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pericardial effusion. Methods: We performed a systematic review of literature in PubMed, published up to February 1, 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines. We screened cross-sectional studies, observational cohort studies, and randomized control trials that evaluated the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in diagnosing TB pericarditis. Papers with noninterpretable results of sensitivity and specificity, non-English articles, and unpublished studies were excluded. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF. We conducted a quality assessment using QUADAS-2 to evaluate the quality of the studies. A bivariate model pooled the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLRs), and negative likelihood ratios (NLRs) of included studies. Results: In total, 581 subjects from nine studies were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis showed that the overall sensitivity, specificity, PLRs and NLRs of included studies were 0.676 (95% CI: 0.580–0.759), 0.994 (95% CI: 0.919–1.000), 110.11 (95% CI: 7.65–1584.57) and 0.326 (95% CI: 0.246–0.433), respectively. Conclusions: Xpert MTB/RIF had a robust specificity but unsatisfactory sensitivity in diagnosing TB pericarditis. These findings indicated that although positive Xpert MTB/RIF test results might be valuable in swiftly distinguishing the diagnosis of TB pericarditis, negative test results might not be able to rule out TB pericarditis. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020167480 28/04/2020

This article evaluates the efficacy of using ranolazine to improve diastolic performance and exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A comprehensive literature review found eight trials where there was no significant difference in peak O2 (p=0.09) and exercise duration (p=0.18) between ranolazine and placebo. The ranolazine group had significantly higher and better diastolic parameters compared to placebo, with a mean difference of 0.45 (95% CI [27.18–39.50]). There were no significant differences for haemodynamic parameters (blood pressure and heart rate) and electrocardiography (QT interval) between ranolazine and placebo. The review found that ranolazine has good efficacy to improve diastolic performance among heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients and it does not affect blood pressure, heart rate and rate of ventricular repolarisation (shortening of the QT interval).

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing between Acute Coronary Syndrom (ACS) and SCAD (Stable Coronary Artery Disease) requires advanced laboratory instrument and electrocardiogram. However, their availabilities in primary care settings in developing countries are limited. Hematologic changes usually occur in the ACS patient and might be valuable to distinguish ACS from SCAD. AIM: This study compares the hematologic indices between ACS and SCAD patients and analyses its predictive value for ACS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 191 patients (79 ACS and 112 SCAD) were enrolled in this study based on the inclusion criteria. Patient’s characteristic, hematologic indices on admission, and the final diagnosis were obtained from medical records. Statistical analyses were done using SPSS 23.0. RESULTS: In this research MCHC value (33.40 vs. 32.80 g/dL; p < 0.05); WBC (11.16 vs. 7.40 x109/L; p < 0.001); NLR (6.29 vs. 2.18; p < 0.001); and PLR (173.88 vs 122.46; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in ACS compared to SCAD patients. While MPV (6.40 vs. 10.00 fL; p < 0.001) was significantly lower in ACS patients. ROC curve analysis showed MPV had the highest AUC (95%) for ACS diagnosis with an optimum cut-off point at ≤ 8.35 fL (sensitivity 93.6% and specificity 97.3%). CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference between hematologic indices between ACS and SCAD patients. MPV is the best indices to distinguish ACS.

BACKGROUND: Various risk scoring methods are available to predict the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the majority of them are complex and require advanced technologies, thus limiting its usage in primary care settings. CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF is a novel risk scoring which we develop from CHA2DS2-VASc score. AIM: We hypothesize that CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF is predictive for the risk of severe CAD, and we compare its validity with previously established CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 210 patients who underwent elective coronary angiography were enrolled in our study. Anthropometric, laboratory, angiographic findings, and patient history were obtained from medical records and used to calculate CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF score. Severe CAD defined as coronary artery occlusion with the Gensini score of ≥20. Statistical analyses were done using SPSS 25.0 and MedCalc 18.2.1. RESULTS: This research showed that the patient with severe CAD has significantly higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF score compared to normal and mild CAD (p < 0.001). CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF correlated significantly with the CAD severity (r = 0.315, p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.395, p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.612, p ≤ 0.001, respectively). CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF may predict the risk of severe CAD independent from other variables (odds ratio = 2.540; 95% confidence interval = 1.794–3.595; p = 0.002) with the cutoff value of ≥2.5 (sensitivity = 81.4% and specificity = 68.1%). Pairwise comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves showed that CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF was superior to predict severe CAD. CONCLUSIONS: CHA2DS2-VASc-HSF scores may predict the risk of severe CAD better than CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc score. This score may easily be used in primary care physicians to predict the risk of severe CAD and provide an early referral to the cardiologist.