Lipase elevation on admission predicts worse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19

Background and objectivesHyperlipasemia is highly prevalent among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of lipase activity, measured at the time of admission, on the clinical course and mortality in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe population of this study comprised 12,139 patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 between June 2020 and June 2021 in a pandemic hospital. Of these, 8819 patients were excluded from the study due to missing data, four patients were excluded due to a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (according to the revised Atlanta criteria), and 72 patients were excluded due to alcohol use or having a history of chronic pancreatitis. The final study sample consisted of the remaining 3244 COVID-19 patients. Laboratory results, intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up periods, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were compared between the normal lipase activity and high lipase activity groups.ResultsThere were 968 (29.8%) patients with high lipase activity at the time of admission. The rate of ICU admission was 36.1% vs. 9.9% (p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation requirement rates were 33.7% vs. 8.3% (p < 0.001), and mortality rates were as 24.6% vs. 6.4% (p < 0.001) in the high lipase activity group compared to the normal lipase activity group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that high lipase activity was an independent factor in predicting mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (odds ratio [OR]: 3.191, p < 0.001).ConclusionElevated lipase activity without acute pancreatitis at the time of admission in COVID-19 patients was determined as an independent predictor of poor prognosis.     

Perivascular fat attenuation for predicting adverse cardiac events in stable patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography

BackgroundInflammation surrounding the coronary arteries can be non-invasively assessed using pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation (PCAT). While PCAT holds promise for further risk stratification of patients with low coronary artery disease (CAD) prevalence, its value in higher risk populations remains unknown.MethodsCORE320 enrolled patients referred for invasive coronary angiography with known or suspected CAD. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) images were collected for 381 patients for whom clinical outcomes were assessed 5 years after enrollment. Using semi-automated image analysis software, PCAT was obtained and normalized for the right coronary (RCA), left anterior descending (LAD), and left circumflex arteries (LCx). The association between PCAT and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow up was assessed using Cox regression models.ResultsThirty-seven patients were excluded due to technical failure. For the remaining 344 patients, median age was 62 (interquartile range, 55–68) with 59% having ≥1 coronary artery stenosis of ≥50% by quantitative coronary angiography. Mean attenuation values for PCAT in RCA, LAD, and LCx were ?74.9, ?74.2, and ?71.2, respectively. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for normalized PCAT in the RCA, LAD, and LCx for MACE were 0.96 (CI: 0.75–1.22, p ?= ?0.71), 1.31 (95% CI: 0.96–1.78, p ?= ?0.09), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78–1.22, p ?= ?0.84), respectively. For death, stroke, or myocardial infarction only, hazard ratios were 0.68 (0.44–1.07), 0.85 (0.56–1.29), and 0.57 (0.41–0.80), respectively.ConclusionsIn patients referred for invasive coronary angiography with suspected CAD, PCAT did not predict MACE during long term follow up. Further studies are needed to understand the relationship of PCAT with CAD risk.     

Robust antibody response after a third BNT162b2 vaccine compared to the second among immunocompromised and healthy individuals,a prospective longitudinal cohort study

PurposeAs protection from COVID-19 following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine showed a time dependent waning, a third (booster) dose was administrated. This study aims to compare the antibody response following the third dose versus the second and to evaluate post-booster seroconversion.MethodsA prospective observational study conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services. Serial SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests, 1,2,3 and 6 months following the second vaccine dose and one month following the third were obtained. Neutralizing antibody levels were measured in a subset of participants. Per individual SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG titer ratios were calculated one month after the booster administration compared to titers one month following the second dose and prior to booster.ResultsAmong 110 participants, 56 (51%) were women. Mean age was 61.7 ± 1.9 years and 66 (60%) were immunocompromised. One month after third dose, IgG titers were induced 7.83 (95 %CI 5.25–11.67) folds and 2.40 (95 %CI 1.90–3.03) folds compared to one month after the second, in the immunocompromised and immunocompetent groups, respectively. Of the 17 immunocompromised participants who were seronegative after the second dose, 4 (24%) became seropositive following the third. Comparing the titers prior to the third dose, an increase of 50.7 (95 %CI 32.5–79.1) fold in the immunocompromised group and 25.7 (95 %CI 19.1–34.7) fold in and immunocompetent group, was observed.ConclusionA third BNT162b2 vaccine elicited robust humoral response, superior to the response observed following the second, among immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals.     

胰腺癌新辅助化疗后行腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术的难点及对策

胰腺癌新辅助化疗在临床应用愈加广泛。对于新辅助化疗后病人，腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术是否安全有效，尚无研究。胰腺癌新辅助化疗后，肿瘤局部纤维结缔组织的炎症会导致缺乏良好组织间隙，解剖分离困难，因此微创手术的难点在于切除过程，而重建相对固定且成熟，很少会受到新辅助化疗的影响。新辅助化疗后，影像学评估肿瘤退缩效果往往不明显，更多的在于对肿瘤标记物等反应肿瘤生物学指标的控制。手术合并血管切除重建的比例相对较高，但得益于3D腹腔镜高清晰度和放大的手术视野，有利受侵犯血管的切除和重建。新辅助化疗后腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术与开放手术相比，长期生存率是否存在差异，尚需前瞻性、大样本、多中心随机对照临床试验加以验证。     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.