Predictors of intensive care unit admission and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection: A cross sectional study at a tertiary care hospital

Background

The transmissibility and associated morbidity and mortality of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2), have overwhelmed worldwide healthcare systems, resulting in an urgent need to understand this virus and its associated effects. The aim of our study was to identify patient symptoms, clinical characteristics, laboratory, and radiology findings that are associated with serious morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A cross sectional study was conducted in Jaber Al Ahmad Hospital, the designated COVID-19 center in Kuwait between August 1st, 2020 and January 31st, 2021. The main outcomes measured in this study were to identify variables associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission, as proxy for serious morbidity, and in hospital mortality.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-six patients were included in the study. Thirty-six (13%) patients were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) and 33 (12%) patients expired. On multivariate analysis we found having elevated fibrinogen [OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.64, P = 0.04], low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.95, P = 0.02], and having bilateral patchy lung shadowing [OR 6.68, 95% CI 1.85–15.28, P < 0.01] to be significantly associated with increase odds of ICU admission. Elevated CRP [OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10–1.98, P < 0.01], low eGFR [OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–0.99, P = 0.05] and having ischemic heart disease [OR 7.03, 95% CI 1.60–46.42, P = 0.04] were independently associated with increased odds of mortality.

Conclusion

Certain inflammatory and coagulopathy markers, and having certain lung radiological features, in addition to having medical comorbidities, specifically, ischemic heart disease and renal impairment are key predictors for serious morbidity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19. These should be incorporated into medical institutes risk assessment tools used by physicians and policy makers to instigate, prioritize, and reprioritize care in patients with COVID-19 and instigate preventative strategy to reduce the impact of future outbreak.

•

Understanding risk factors associated with worse outcomes when infected with COVID-19 infection is important.

•

A multifactorial model incorporating certain laboratory blood tests and patient clinical characteristics seems to be the best way to predict morbidity and mortality.

•

Obesity, Cardiovascular and renal deficiencies are predictors of worse outcomes and so should be prioritized in managing COVID-19 patients.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Surgeons' and Surgical Residents' Caseload, Surgical Skills, and Mental Health in Kuwait

INTRODUCTION

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in governments implementing new regulations to divert healthcare resources, which in return led to the postponement of elective and semi-elective surgical procedures. Therefore, many surgeons and as well as surgeons in training reported feeling redundant, which eventually resulted in psychological distress. This study aimed to assess the sociodemographic differences in the psychological impact resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and outline the effect it had on surgical training.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study conducted in Kuwait. Data were collected by distributing a questionnaire electronically to surgeons and surgeons in training. The survey included questions aimed at assessing both the effect of the pandemic on surgical training and the psychological impact it had on surgeons, assessing the latter using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 screening tool.

RESULTS

The response rate for the study was 52%, with the majority being junior male surgeons. A majority of surgeons in training reported postponement of their scheduled academic teaching sessions (78.9%) and pre-assigned surgical rotations (65.8%). In terms of the psychological impact of the pandemic, a majority of the participants reported an element of depression and stress, 61.2% and 55%, respectively, while approximately half, 48.1%, had symptoms associated with anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative association with the psychological well-being of a significant proportion of surgeons and associated surgical training programs.

Endoscopic versus laparoscopic management of an eroded mesh in vertical banded gastroplasty: video case series and literature review

Vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) was one of the most common bariatric surgeries worldwide in the beginning of the 21st century. However, recently we have increasingly encountered its long-term complications. We present two cases of VBG mesh erosion, alongside videos for their management. The first is of a 35-year-old female that presented 10 years after her VBG, while the second is of a 38-year-old female presenting 9-years post hers. Patient one presented with weight regain, regurgitation, epigastric pain, and dysphagia. CT imaging showed staple-line dehiscence and foreign body inside the stomach. Patient 2's presentation was of weight regain. Upon further workup, she was diagnosed with mesh erosion. In case 1, an endoscopic approach was taken using Soehendra lithotriptor device, while for case 2, a laparoscopic approach was undertaken. Endoscopic management of mesh erosion post-VBG is not only safe and feasible but also less invasive and time-consuming than the laparoscopic technique.

Single-Incision Laparoscopy Could Be Better than Standard Laparoscopy in Right Colectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Human natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is slowed down by technical hurdles. Concomitantly, single-incision laparoscopy has been increasingly reported as an alternative. By reducing the invasiveness of standard laparoscopy, we may further reduce postoperative pain, decrease morbidity, preserve abdominal wall, and enhance cosmesis. Such techniques have been widely applied, including in colorectal surgery. The aim of this multicenter study is to compare the results of single-incision right colectomy (SIRC) with the results of the standard laparoscopic right colectomy (SLRC) in patients with colon cancer.

METHODS

The files of patients who underwent right colectomy for cancer in five hospitals between January 2010 and December 2013 have been reviewed. Exclusion criteria were open surgery, emergency setting, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3. Patients were distributed in Groups A (SIRC) or B (SLRC).

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-two patients were included in this study, 336 in Group A and 256 in Group B. Mean operative time was 129.0 minutes (range 65-245) in Group A and 168.1 minutes in the Group B (range 70-290), respectively (P < .001). No mortality occurred in either group. The overall 30-day morbidity rates were 21.4% in Group A and 25% in Group B, respectively (P = .64). The median length of hospital stay was 4.95 days (range 3-14) in Group A and 5.5 days in Group B (range 3-12), respectively (P = .28). Conversion to laparotomy occurred in four patients in each group (P = 1). Length of skin incision was significantly shorter in Group A than in Group B (2.99 ± 0.63 cm versus 4.94 ± 0.65 cm, P < .001). Histological analysis of the operative specimens showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

SIRC is feasible and sure for patients with colon cancer. As compared with SLRC, SIRC may offer some advantages, including lower operative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better cosmoses, without compromising the oncological quality of the resected specimen.