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.     

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.     

Quantification of exhaled propofol is not feasible during single-lung ventilation using double-lumen tubes: A multicenter prospective observational trial

Background

Volatile propofol can be measured in exhaled air and correlates to plasma concentrations with a time delay. However, the effect of single-lung ventilation on exhaled propofol is unclear. Therefore, our goal was to evaluate exhaled propofol concentrations during single-lung compared to double-lung ventilation using double-lumen tubes.

Methods

In a first step, we quantified adhesion of volatile propofol to the inner surface of double-lumen tubes during double- and single-lumen ventilation in vitro. In a second step, we enrolled 30 patients scheduled for lung surgery in two study centers. Anesthesia was provided with propofol and remifentanil. We utilized left-sided double-lumen tubes to separately ventilate each lung. Exhaled propofol concentrations were measured at 1-min intervals and plasma for propofol analyses was sampled every 20 min. To eliminate the influence of dosing on volatile propofol concentration, exhalation rate was normalized to plasma concentration.

Results

In-vitro ventilation of double-lumen tubes resulted in increasing propofol concentrations at the distal end of the tube over time. In vitro clamping the bronchial lumen led to an even more pronounced increase (Δ AUC +62%) in propofol gas concentration over time. Normalized propofol exhalation during lung surgery was 31% higher during single-lung compared to double-lung ventilation.

Conclusion

During single-lung ventilation, propofol concentration in exhaled air, in contrast to our expectations, increased by approximately one third. However, this observation might not be affected by change in perfusion-ventilation during single-lung ventilation but rather arises from reduced propofol absorption on the inner surface area of the double-lumen tube. Thus, it is only possible to utilize exhaled propofol concentration to a limited extent during single-lung ventilation.

Registration of Clinical Trial

DRKS-ID DRKS00014788 ( www.drks.de ).     

青年人群近距离工作后眼部参数的变化及恢复时间

目的：观察青年人群近距离用眼后眼部生理及功能性参数的变化及恢复时间。

方法：前瞻性研究。随机选取2019-12/2020-06在我院进行医学验光的患者69例138眼，根据主觉验光结果分为正视组(+0.75D≤等效球镜度≤-0.50D，18例36眼)、低度近视组(-0.75D≤等效球镜度≤-3.00D，25例50眼)和中度近视组(-3.25D≤等效球镜度≤-6.00D，26例52眼)。所有受试者近距离阅读20min后远眺放松20min，分别于近距离用眼前、近距离用眼20min后、远眺5、10、15、20min时测量受试者眼部生理性参数\〖前房深度(ACD)、眼轴长度(AL)\〗和功能性参数\〖正相对调节(PRA)、调节反应(BCC)\〗，分析各参数的达极时间和恢复时间。

结果：近距离用眼后眼轴变长，前房变浅，PRA绝对值变大，BCC无明显变化，75%(52/69)的受试者AL在近距离用眼20min后达极，87%(60/69)的受试者ACD在远眺5min时达极，96%(66/69)的受试者PRA在近距离用眼20min后达极，且以上参数均在远眺10min后逐渐恢复至初始状态。

结论：近距离用眼后眼部参数发生改变，眼轴变长，前房变浅，PRA绝对值增大，但均在远眺放松过程中逐渐回退，且均需要10min以上才能恢复至初始状态。     

飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术治疗合并难治性青光眼的白内障

目的：评估飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术治疗合并难治性青光眼的白内障的有效性和安全性。

方法：回顾性病例对照研究。2019-10/2021-10入院合并难治性青光眼的白内障患者53例53眼，依据自愿选择分为飞秒激光辅助白内障超声乳化(FLACS)组26例26眼和常规白内障超声乳化(CPCS)组27例27眼。两组分别行FLACS和CPCS联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术。比较两组患者术中超声乳化能量释放量(CDE)、有效超声时间(EPT)的差异和术前与术后抗青光眼药物数量的变化，以及术后观察不同时期(1d，1wk，1、3mo)在提高最佳矫正视力(BCVA)，降低眼压、角膜内皮细胞损伤程度和手术并发症及成功率状况。

结果：FLACS组术中CDE和EPT明显低于CPCS组(t=8.50、5.16； P<0.01、=0.001)。两组术后抗青光眼药物较术前均明显减少(t=9.12、7.76； P=0.011、0.016)，但两组间无差异(t=1.79，P=0.082)。两组术后BCVA均较术前改善，眼压均较术前降低(P<0.05)。FLACS组在术后早期(1d，1wk)BCVA的改善较CPCS组更显著(t=9.74、8.49； P=0.008、0.012)，但在术后1、3mo的BCVA改善程度并无不同(t=0.62、0.44； P=1.415、2.021)。CPCS组在术后随访不同时期的角膜内皮细胞损伤较FLACS组更明显(P<0.05)。术后随访的不同时期FLACS组和CPCS组在控制眼压方面无差异(F_组间=0.64，P_组间=0.421)。FLACS组的手术并发症发生率27%(7/26)较CPCS组89%(24/27)低(χ²=20.95，P<0.01)，其中角膜水肿(8% vs 41%)、前囊撕裂(0 vs 11%)在FLACS组中明显低于CPCS组，后囊破裂(0 vs 7%)、玻璃体脱出(0 vs 4%)及人工晶状体偏位(0 vs 7%)也均发生在CPCS组。但两组的治疗总成功率相近(P=28.718)。

结论：飞秒激光辅助超声乳化联合Ahmed青光眼引流阀植入术可充分发挥联合手术的精准微创可控优势，帮助合并难治性青光眼的白内障患者有效降低眼压及更早获得视力恢复。