Ivermectin administration is associated with lower gastrointestinal complications and greater ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19: A propensity score analysis

IntroductionCOVID-19 patients have been reported to have digestive symptoms with poor outcome. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been used in COVID-19 patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ivermectin has effects on gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19.MethodsCOVID-19 patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU were included in this study. The ventilated patients who received ivermectin within 3 days after admission were assigned to the Ivermectin group, and the others were assigned to the Control group. Patients in the Ivermectin group received ivermectin 200 μg/kg via nasal tube. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days within 4 weeks from admission were evaluated as clinical outcomes using a propensity score with the inverse probability weighting method.ResultsWe included 88 patients in this study, of whom 39 patients were classified into the Ivermectin group, and 49 patients were classified into the Control group. The hazard ratio for gastrointestinal complications in the Ivermectin group as compared with the Control group was 0.221 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.057 to 0.855; p = 0.029) in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The odds ratio for ventilator-free days as compared with the Control group was 1.920 (95% CI, 1.076 to 3.425; p = 0.027) in a proportional odds logistic regression model.ConclusionsIvermectin improved gastrointestinal complications and the number of ventilator-free days in severe COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms by SARS-Cov-2 might be associated with COVID-19 outcome.     

Endoscopy-Related Bleeding and Thromboembolic Events in Patients on Direct Oral Anticoagulants or Vitamin K Antagonists

1. Download : Download high-res image (232KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术的快速康复外科护理

目的 探讨快速康复外科 （FTS）理念在经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术围术期患者护理中的应用效果。方法 选择2018年1月~2019年1月我院收治并行经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压患者100例，随机分成观察组和对照组，每组50例。对照组应用常规方法进行围术期护理，观察组应用FTS理念进行围术期护理。比较两组焦虑情况、术后并发症发生率、平均住院日及平均住院费用。结果 观察组轻度焦虑多于对照组，中、重度焦虑少于对照组（P＜0.05）；观察组术后并发症发生率低于对照组[恶心呕吐（4.00% vs 16.00%）、尿路感染（4.00% vs 18.00%）、颅内感染（0 vs 8.00%）、颅内血肿（2.00% vs 14.00%）和术后应激性疼痛（16.00% vs 34.00%）]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察组平均住院日和平均住院费用均低于对照组[（9.13±1.14）d vs（12.44±0.89）d]；[（2.15±0.66）万元 vs （3.05±0.61）万元]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 应用FTS理念能缓解经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术患者术前紧张恐惧的心理，减少术后并发症，缩短患者住院日，降低住院费用，护理效果较好。     

改良大骨瓣联合软通道微创介入逐渐减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的疗效分析

目的：探讨改良大骨瓣联合软通道微创介入逐渐减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤的疗效。方法方便选择自2009年12月—2014年11月该院收治的重型颅脑损伤病例70例,随机分为改良组和对照组2组,每组35例,改良组施行改良大骨瓣联合软通道微创介入逐渐减压术,对照组按标准大骨瓣开颅、硬脑膜一次性全切开,对比分析两组的并发症发生率及预后。结果改良组发生迟发性颅内血肿、大面积脑梗塞及弥漫性脑肿胀等并发症9例(25.7％,9/35),预后良好者23例(65.7％,23/35),对照组发生并发症19例(54.3％,19/35),预后良好者14例(40.0％,14/35),两组并发症发生率和预后差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论改良大骨瓣联合软通道微创介入逐渐减压术治疗重型颅脑损伤,效果良好,显著降低死亡率。     

Prevalence and pathophysiology of early dumping in patients after primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during a mixed-meal tolerance test

Background

Early dumping is a poorly defined and incompletely understood complication after Roux-en-Y gastric (RYGB).

Esophageal Surveillance Practices in Esophageal Atresia Patients: A Survey by the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network

IntroductionEndoscopic surveillance guidelines for patients with repaired esophageal atresia (EA) rely primarily on expert opinion. Prior to embarking on a prospective EA surveillance registry, we sought to understand EA surveillance practices within the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network (EPSN).MethodsAn anonymous, 23-question Qualtrics survey was emailed to 181 physicians (surgeons and gastroenterologists) at 19 member institutions. Likert scale questions gauged agreement with international EA surveillance guideline-derived statements. Multiple-choice questions assessed individual and institutional practices.ResultsThe response rate was 77%. Most respondents (80%) strongly agree or agree that EA surveillance endoscopy should follow a set schedule, while only 36% claimed to perform routine upper GI endoscopy regardless of symptoms. Many institutions (77%) have an aerodigestive clinic, even if some lack a multi-disciplinary EA team. Most physicians (72%) expressed strong interest in helping develop evidence-based guidelines.ConclusionsOur survey reveals physician agreement with current guidelines but weak adherence. Surveillance methods vary greatly, underscoring the lack of evidence-based data to guide EA care. Aerodigestive clinics may help implement surveillance schedules. Respondents support evidence-based protocols, which bodes well for care standardization. Results will inform the first multi-institutional EA databases in the United States (US), which will be essential for evidence-based care.Level of EvidenceThis is a prognosis study with level 4 evidence.