Reassessing the operative threshold for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the context of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The worldwide pandemic involving the novel respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) has forced health care systems to delay elective operations, including abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, to conserve resources. This study provides a structured analysis of the decision to delay AAA repair and quantify the potential for harm. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed modeling immediate repair of AAA relative to an initial nonoperative (delayed repair) approach. Risks of COVID-19 contraction and mortality, aneurysm rupture, and operative mortality were considered. A deterministic sensitivity analysis for a range of patient ages (50 to >80), probability of COVID-19 infection (0.01%-30%), aneurysm size (5.5 to >7 cm), and time horizons (3-9 months) was performed. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted for three representative ages (60, 70, and 80). Analyses were conducted for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR). RESULTS: Patients with aneurysms 7 cm or greater demonstrated a higher probability of survival when treated with immediate EVAR or OSR, compared with delayed repair, for patients under 80 years of age. When considering EVAR for aneurysms 5.5 to 6.9 cm, immediate repair had a higher probability of survival except in settings with a high probability of COVID-19 infection (10%-30%) and advanced age (70-85+ years). A nonoperative strategy maximized the probability of survival as patient age or operative risk increased. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that patients with large aneurysms (>7 cm) faced a 5.4% to 7.7% absolute increase in the probability of mortality with a delay of repair of 3 months. Young patients (60-70 years) with aneurysms 6 to 6.9 cm demonstrated an elevated risk of mortality (1.5%-1.9%) with a delay of 3 months. Those with aneurysms 5 to 5.9 cm demonstrated an increased survival with immediate repair in young patients (60); however, this was small in magnitude (0.2%-0.8%). The potential for harm increased as the length of surgical delay increased. For elderly patients requiring OSR, in the context of endemic COVID-19, delay of repair improves the probability of survival. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to delay operative repair of AAA should consider both patient age and local COVID-19 prevalence in addition to aneurysm size. EVAR should be considered when possible due to a reduced risk of harm and lower resource utilization.

A confirmed case of toxic shock syndrome associated with the use of a menstrual cup.

Menstrual cups have been reported to be an acceptable substitute for tampons. These flexible cups have also been reported to provide a sustainable solution to menstrual management, with modest cost savings and no significant health risk. The present article documents the first case of toxic shock syndrome associated with the use of a menstrual cup in a woman 37 years of age, using a menstrual cup for the first time. Toxic shock syndrome and the literature on menstrual cups is reviewed and a possible mechanism for the development of toxic shock syndrome in the patient is described.

Les coupes menstruelles sont considérées comme un substitut acceptable des tampons. Ces coupes flexibles sont également considérées comme une solution durable pour gérer les menstruations, entraînant de modestes économies, sans risque important pour la santé.Le présent article rend compte du premier cas de syndrome du choc toxique chez une femme de 37 ans, qui utilisait une coupe menstruelle pour la première fois. Les chercheurs analysent le syndrome du choc toxique et les publications sur les coupes menstruelles et décrivent un mécanisme possible d'apparition du syndrome du choc toxique chez la patiente.