Category: Nevin Manimala

Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 May 23;37(3):315-320. doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0425.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), stroke is a major complication that increases morbidity and mortality. The presence of carotid stenosis (CS) increases risk of stroke, and the optimal treatment remains uncertain due to the lack of randomized clinical trials. The aim of this study is to compare three management approaches to CS in patients submitted to CABG.

METHODS: From 2005 to 2015, 79 consecutive patients with significant CS submitted to CABG were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided in three groups, according to CS treatment: 17 underwent staged carotid endarterectomy (CEA)-CABG, 26 underwent synchronous CEA-CABG, and 36 underwent isolated CABG without carotid intervention. The primary outcomes were composed by 30-day postoperative acute myocardial infarction (MI), 30-day postoperative stroke, and death due to all causes during the follow-up.

RESULTS: Patients were evaluated during an average 2.05 years (95% confidence interval = 1.51-2.60) of follow-up. Major adverse cardiac events, including death, postoperative MI, and postoperative stroke, occurred in 76.5% of the staged group, 34.6% of the synchronous group, and 33.3% of the isolated CABG group (P=0.007). As for MI, the rates were 29.4%, 3.85%, and 11.1% (P=0.045), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in total mortality rates (35.3%, 30.8%, and 25.0%, respectively; P=0,72) and stroke (29.4%, 7.7%, and 8.3%, respectively; P=0,064) between groups.

CONCLUSION: Staged CEA-CABG is associated with higher major adverse cardiac events and MI rate when compared to the strategy of synchronous and isolated CABG, but without statistically difference in total mortality during the entire follow-up.

PMID:35605216 | DOI:10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0425

J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 May 5. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001538. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

This study examined the relationship between eight measures of religious involvement and five anxiety disorders among a nationally representative sample of African-Americans (N = 3403). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview was used to assess 12-month and lifetime prevalence for each disorder. Logistic regression indicated weekly service attendance was inversely associated with 12-month and lifetime panic disorder, lifetime agoraphobia, and 12-month and lifetime posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Prayer was inversely associated with 12-month agoraphobia, 12-month social phobia, and lifetime PTSD. Listening to religious radio and looking to God for strength were also inversely related to, respectively, 12-month and lifetime panic disorder. Conversely, reading religious materials was positively associated with 12-month panic disorder, 12-month agoraphobia, lifetime PTSD, and lifetime generalized anxiety disorder. The results are discussed in light of conceptual models that specify multiple and sometimes divergent pathways through which religion impacts health, and suggestions for clinicians addressing anxiety disorders are delineated.

PMID:35605210 | DOI:10.1097/NMD.0000000000001538

JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 May 17. doi: 10.2196/37668. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most studies of long covid (symptoms of COVID-19 beyond 4 weeks) have focused on people hospitalised in their initial illness. Long covid is thought to be under-recorded in UK primary care electronic records.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine which symptoms people present to primary care following COVID-19, and whether presentation differs in people who were not hospitalised, and post-long covid mortality.

METHODS: We used routine data from the nationally representative Primary Care Sentinel Cohort of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (N=7.4million), applying a pre-defined long covid phenotype and grouped by whether the illness index was in hospital or community. We included COVID-19 cases between 1st-March-2020 and 1st-April-2021. We conducted a before and after analysis of pre-specified long covid symptoms identified by the Office of National Statistics, comparing symptoms presented between one and six months after their index infection matched with the same months one year previously. We conducted logistic regression analysis, quoting odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, reporting differences between those with an index community infection compared to those who had been hospitalised, and separately associations with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS: 5.6% (416,505/7,396,702) and 1.8% (7,623/416,505) of patients respectively had a coded diagnosis of COVID-19 and diagnosis or referral for long covid. People coded as having long covid were significantly more likely to have presented the pre-specified symptoms after vs before COVID-19 infection (odds ratios 2.66 [2.46-2.88] for those with index community infection and 2.42 [2.03-2.89] for those hospitalised). Following an index community infection, patients were more likely to present with non-specific symptoms (odds ratio 3.44 [3.00-3.95], P<.001) than following a hospital admission (odds ratio 2.09 [1.56-2.80], P<.001). Mental health sequelae were more commonly associated with hospital admission index infections (odds ratio 2.21 [1.64-2.96]) compared to community (odds ratio 1.36 [1.21-1.53], P<.001). People presenting to primary care following hospital infection were more likely to be male (odds ratio 1.43 [1.25-1.64], P<.001), more socioeconomically deprived (odds ratio 1.42 [1.24-1.63], P<.001); and to have multi-morbidity (odds ratio 1.41 [1.26-1.57], P<.001) than those presenting after an index community infection. All-cause mortality in people with long covid was associated with increasing age; male gender (odds ratio 3.32 [1.34-9.24], P<.01) and higher multi-morbidity score (odds ratio 2.11 [1.34-3.29], P<.001). One or more vaccine doses was associated with reduced odds of mortality (odds ratio 0.10 [0.03-0.35], P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The low percentage of people recorded as having long covid following COVID-19 reflects either low prevalence or under-recording. The characteristics and comorbidities of those presenting with long covid following a community infection are different from those who were hospitalised with their index infection. This study provides insights into the presentation of long covid in primary care and implications for workload.

CLINICALTRIAL: Not applicable.

PMID:35605170 | DOI:10.2196/37668

Aust J Rural Health. 2022 May 23. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12875. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore reasons for survival disparities for patients with prostate cancer in the Barwon South West area of Victoria.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We have described incidence, diagnostics, treatment pathways, and survival for four regions of the Barwon South Western Victoria. Analysis included all newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients from 2009 to 2015 in the Evaluation of Cancer Outcomes Barwon South West Registry. Regions included 1: Queenscliffe 2: Geelong, Colac Otway and Corangamite 3: Moyne, Warrnambool and Southern Grampians and 4: Glenelg. Across the four regions, variables were compared using a chi square statistic or analysis of variance and survival data was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier curves.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence, treatment pathways and survival for prostate cancer patients.

RESULTS: A total of 1776 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2009 to 2015 in the Barwon South West area. In regions 1-4, there were 298 (1.04%), 1085 (0.92%), 273 (0.97%) and 120 (1.2%) cases, respectively. There was no significant difference in Gleason score and treatment. The 5-year survival rate was 85%, 76%, 71% and 80%, respectively, as compared with the national average of 95%. PSA scores >20 ng/ml at diagnosis, as a surrogate for high-risk disease, occurred in 23%, 29%, 22% and 21%, respectively (p < 0.01). The proportions presenting with stage IV disease were 17%, 26%, 21% and 6%, respectively (p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer in South West Victoria have a considerably lower 5-year survival compared with the national average with later disease at presentation in some areas.

PMID:35605157 | DOI:10.1111/ajr.12875

Scand J Gastroenterol. 2022 May 23:1-6. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2070436. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection is being introduced to colonoscopy, but there is uncertainty how this affects endoscopists’ ability to detect polyps and neoplasms. We performed a video-based study to address whether AI improved the endoscopists’ performance to detect polyps.

METHODS: We established a dataset of 200 colonoscopy videos (length 5 s; 100 without polyps and 100 with one polyp). About 33 early-career endoscopists (50-400 colonoscopies performed) from 10 European countries classified each video as either ‘polyp present’ or ‘polyp not present’. The video assessment was performed twice with a four-week interval. The first assessment was performed without any AI tool, whereas the second was performed with an AI tool for polyp detection. The primary endpoint was early-career endoscopists’ sensitivity to detect polyps. Gold standard for presence and histology of polyps were confirmed by two expert endoscopists and pathologists, respectively. McNemar’s test was used for statistical significance.

RESULTS: There were 86 neoplastic and 14 non-neoplastic polyps (mean size 5.6 mm) in the 100 videos with polyps. Early-career endoscopists’ sensitivity to detect polyps increased from 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1-87.5%) to 91.7% (95%CI: 90.7-92.6%) with the AI aid (p < .0001). Their sensitivity to detect neoplastic polyps increased from 85.4% (95% CI: 84.0-86.7%) to 92.1% (95%CI: 91.1-93.1%) with the AI aid (p < .0001).

CONCLUSION: The polyp detection AI tool helped early-career endoscopists to increase their sensitivity to identify all polyps and neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy.

PMID:35605150 | DOI:10.1080/00365521.2022.2070436

Dent Traumatol. 2022 May 23. doi: 10.1111/edt.12759. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Pediatric oral and maxillofacial surgeons have faced severe challenges in ward management due to their high risk of exposure during the COVID-19 epidemic. The aim of this study was to analyze and summarize the treatment methods and infection prevention and control measures applied in emergency cases in the Department of Pediatric Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, during the COVID-19 epidemic.

METHODS: In this retrospective study, information was collected from 256 pediatric emergency patients who were treated from January 23, 2020 to August 9, 2021. The patients’ data were statistically analyzed according to age, gender, disease and pathogenesis, operation time, and the main treatment applied in pediatric oral and maxillofacial emergency cases during the COVID-19 epidemic.

RESULTS: During the epidemic period, 256 pediatric emergency patients were successfully treated. Among them, there were 170 boys and 86 girls. In all, 182 patients were diagnosed with oral or facial lacerations; 43 had jaw fractures; 26 had maxillofacial infections; and five had dento-alveolar fractures. A total of 246 patients underwent surgery under negative pressure with level 3 protection standards. No doctors or patients infected with COVID-19 were found throughout the stury period.

CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric oral and maxillofacial emergency in-patients mainly experienced maxillofacial trauma during the COVID-19 epidemic, followed by infection. Effective diagnosis and treatment, and avoidance of COVID-19 infection can be achieved by strictly following epidemic prevention and treatment procedures.

PMID:35605156 | DOI:10.1111/edt.12759

Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022 May 23:zxac144. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxac144. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of peripheral vasopressor administration in an attempt to minimize the placement and improve early removal of unnecessary central lines to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates.

METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who received vasopressors via peripheral infusion over 3 months, starting at the time of guideline implementation.

RESULTS: We identified 129 vasopressor orders among 79 patients that were administered peripherally. Among these orders, 3 events were documented as possible extravasation events. Forty-five patients (57%) did not require central line placement due to increasing vasopressor requirements. Standard utilization ratio data suggest minimal central line impact of the protocol implementation. December 2020 to February 2021 was associated with a large second peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in our region. Utilization of central lines was less than predicted in December 2020 to February 2021 in 2 of our 3 intensive care units (ICUs); however, the differences were statistically significant on only 3 occasions. In the third ICU, utilization was greater than predicted, but this unit housed a majority of the most critically ill patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSION: This study suggests that short-term use of select vasopressors at conservative doses is safe for peripheral administration and points toward efficacy at preventing central line placement. Further analysis is required to confirm efficacy.

PMID:35605137 | DOI:10.1093/ajhp/zxac144

J Orthop Trauma. 2022 May 20. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002412. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate two prognostic models for mortality after a fracture of the hip, the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (NHFS) and Hip fracture Estimator of Mortality Amsterdam (HEMA), and to compare their predictive performance to physician assessment of mortality risk in hip fracture patients.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.

SETTING: Two level 2 trauma centers located in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS: Two hundred forty-four patients admitted to the Emergency Departments of both hospitals with a fractured hip.

INTERVENTION: Data used in both prediction models were collected at the time of admission for each individual patient, as well as predictions of mortality by treating physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Predictive performances were evaluated for 30-day, 1-year and 5-year mortality. Discrimination was assessed with the Area Under the Curve (AUC); calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and calibration plots; clinical usefulness in terms of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS: Mortality was 7.4% after 30 days, 22.1% after one year and 59.4% after five years. There were no statistically significant differences in discrimination between the prediction methods (AUC 0.73 – 0.80). The NHFS demonstrated underfitting for 30-day mortality and failed to identify the majority of high-risk patients (sensitivity 33%). The HEMA showed systematic overestimation and overfitting. Physicians were able to identify most high-risk patients for 30-day mortality (sensitivity 78%), but with some overestimation. Both risk models demonstrated a lack of fit when used for 1-year and 5-year mortality predictions.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, prognostic models and physicians demonstrated similar discriminating abilities when predicting mortality in hip fracture patients. While physicians overestimated mortality, they were better at identifying high-risk patients and at predicting long-term mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PMID:35605101 | DOI:10.1097/BOT.0000000000002412

J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2022 May 1;6(5). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00211.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The modified Radiographic Union Score for Tibia (RUST) fractures was developed to better describe fracture healing, but its utility in resource-limited settings is poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the validity of mRUST scores in evaluating fracture healing in diaphyseal femur fractures treated operatively at a single tertiary referral hospital in Tanzania.

METHODS: Radiographs of 297 fractures were evaluated using the mRUST score and compared with outcomes including revision surgery and EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) and visual analog scale (VAS) quality-of-life measures. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating mRUST scores with EQ-5D and VAS scores. Divergent validity was assessed by comparing mRUST scores in patients based on revision surgery status.

RESULTS: The mRUST score had moderate correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.40) with EQ-5D scores and weak correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.320) with VAS scores. Compared with patients who required revision surgery, patients who did not require revision surgery had higher RUST scores at all time points, with statistically significant differences at 3 months (2.02, P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION: These results demonstrate that the mRUST score is a valid method of evaluating the healing of femoral shaft fractures in resource-limited settings, with high interrater reliability, correlation with widely used quality of life measures (EQ-5D and VAS), and expected divergence in the setting of complications requiring revision surgery.

PMID:35605095 | DOI:10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00211

J Biopharm Stat. 2022 May 23:1-2. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2022.2065503. Online ahead of print.

NO ABSTRACT

PMID:35605090 | DOI:10.1080/10543406.2022.2065503