Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Objective: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is considered superior to coronary angiography (CA). However, OCT is not widely used, and data are limited in India. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of OCT for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in all-comer patients were evaluated and compared with those of CA. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, the data associated with 434 patients who underwent PCI between December 2018 and June 2020 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) at 6 months. Results: The patients were divided into OCT-guided and angiography-guided PCI groups (217 in each group) after propensity matching. The OCT-guided PCI group had a significantly larger proportion of patients with unstable angina (55.7% vs. 43.3%, p=0.009) and non-STelevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI; 17.5% vs. 10.0%, p=0.02) compared with the angiography-guided PCI group, and the proportion of patients with STEMI was significantly lower in the OCT-guided PCI group than in the angiography-guided PCI group (23.5% vs. 41.5%, p=0.00005). The OCT-guided PCI group had a lower incidence of MACEs at 6 months than the angiography-guided PCI group but without statistical significance (6.9% vs. 9.7%, p=0.296).Incidences of target lesion failure, target vessel myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, or stent thrombosis did not occur in either group. On post-PCI OCT, stent underexpansion, tissue prolapse, stent edge dissection, and stent malapposition were observed in 28.5%, 10%, 4.1%, and 3.7% of the cases, respectively. Conclusion When comparing OCT-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI showed slightly superior clinical outcomes at 6 months, although the differences were not statistically significant.

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) of the thyroid is a well-tolerated minimally invasive procedure. Thyroid abscess, as a complication of FNA in an immune-competent adult, is extremely rare. Diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion, for which treatment is intravenous antibiotics, drainage, and sometimes surgery. Here we present a case of thyroid abscess in an otherwise healthy man who presented with neck pain, rapidly increasing neck swelling, difficulty in swallowing, and hoarseness of the voice that developed two weeks after diagnostic FNA of a thyroid nodule which had been present for ten months. Despite antibiotic treatment, the abscess ruptured into the trachea, requiring surgical intervention. This highlights the importance of maintaining asepsis during FNA of the thyroid. Timely diagnosis of a thyroid abscess is essential to avoid life-threatening airway complications.

Background/Aims: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recognized to have variable clinical manifestations. The clinical presentation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) having COVID-19 is unclear. Methods: We identified articles reporting about the clinical presentation of COVID-19 in those with underlying IBD from PubMed and Embase. The studies, irrespective of design or language, were included. The overall pooled frequency of various symptoms was estimated. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the quality of studies. Results: Eleven studies, including 1,325 patients, were included in the pooled analysis. The pooled estimates for clinical presentation were; fever: 67.53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.38–83.88), cough: 59.58% (95% CI, 45.01–72.63), diarrhea: 27.26% (95% CI, 19.51–36.69), running nose: 27% (95% CI, 15.26–43.19) and dyspnea: 25.29% (95% CI, 18.52–33.52). The pooled prevalence rates for abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting were 13.08% (95% CI, 9.24–18.19), 10.08% (95% CI, 5.84–16.85) and 8.80% (95% CI, 4.43–16.70) per 100 population, respectively. Conclusions The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in IBD patients is similar to the general population.