Gastrointestinal perforation secondary to COVID-19: Case reports and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) presents primarily with respiratory symptoms. However, extra respiratory manifestations are being frequently recognized including gastrointestinal involvement. The most common gastrointestinal symptoms are nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Gastrointestinal perforation in association with COVID-19 is rarely reported in the literature. PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS: In this series, we are reporting 3 cases with different presentations of gastrointestinal perforation in the setting of COVID-19. Two patients were admitted with critical COVID-19 pneumonia, both required intensive care, intubation and mechanical ventilation. The first one was an elderly gentleman who had difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation and required tracheostomy. During his stay in intensive care unit, he developed Candidemia without clear source. After transfer to the ward, he developed lower gastrointestinal bleeding and found by imaging to have sealed perforated cecal mass with radiological signs of peritonitis. The second one was an obese young gentleman who was found incidentally to have air under diaphragm. Computed tomography showed severe pneumoperitoneum with cecal and gastric wall perforation. The third case was an elderly gentleman who presented with severe COVID-19 pneumonia along with symptoms and signs of acute abdomen who was confirmed by imaging to have sigmoid diverticulitis with perforation and abscess collection. INTERVENTIONS: The first 2 cases were treated conservatively. The third one was treated surgically. OUTCOME: Our cases had a variable hospital course but fortunately all were discharged in a good clinical condition. CONCLUSION: Our aim from this series is to highlight this fatal complication to clinicians in order to enrich our understanding of this pandemic and as a result improve patients' outcome.

Tidal peritoneal dialysis versus ultrafiltration in type 1 cardiorenal syndrome: A prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of peritoneal dialysis in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by acute cardiorenal syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 88 patients with type 1 acute cardiorenal syndrome to a strategy of ultrafiltration therapy (44 patients) or tidal peritoneal dialysis (44 patients). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and left ventricular function represented as ejection fraction, as assessed 72 and 120 h after random assignment. Patients were followed for 90 days after discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration therapy was inferior to tidal peritoneal dialysis therapy with respect to the primary endpoint of the change in the serum creatinine levels at 72 and 120 h (p = 0.041) and ejection fraction at 72 and 120 h after enrollment (p = 0.044 and p = 0.032), owing to both an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration therapy group and a decrease in its level in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group. At 120 h, the mean change in the creatinine level was 1.4 ± 0.5 mg/dL in the ultrafiltration therapy group, as compared with 2.4 ± 1.3 mg/dL in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group (p = 0.023). At 72 and 120 h, there was a significant difference in weight loss between patients in the ultrafiltration therapy group and those in the tidal peritoneal dialysis group (p = 0.025). Net fluid loss was also greater in tidal peritoneal dialysis patients (p = 0.018). Adverse events were more observed in the ultrafiltration therapy group (p = 0.007). At 90 days post-discharge, tidal peritoneal dialysis patients had fewer rehospitalization for heart failure (14.3% vs 32.5%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Tidal peritoneal dialysis is a safe and effective means for removing toxins and large quantities of excess fluid from patients with intractable heart failure. In patients with cardiorenal syndrome type 1, the use of tidal peritoneal dialysis was superior to ultrafiltration therapy for the preservation of renal function, improvement of cardiac function, and net fluid loss. Ultrafiltration therapy was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study of Tidal Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.

Few studies have discussed the role of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in managing acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. The present study compares the outcome of AKI in intensive care unit (ICU) patients randomized to treatment with tidal PD (TPD) or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). One hundred and twenty-five ICU patients with AKI were randomly allotted to CVVHDF, (Group A, N = 62) or TPD, (group B, N = 63). Cause and severity of renal injury were assessed at the time of initiating dialysis. The primary outcome was hospital mortality at 28 days, and secondary outcomes were time to recovery of renal function, duration of stay in the ICU, metabolic and fluid control, and improvement of sensorial and hemodynamic parameters. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in regard to patients' characteristics. The survival at 28 days was significantly better in the patients treated with TPD when compared to CVVHDF (69.8% vs. 46.8%, P < 0.01). Infectious complications were significantly less (P < 0.01) in the TPD group (9.5%) when compared to the CVVHDF group (17.7%). Recovery of kidney function (60.3% vs. 35.5%), median time to resolution of AKI and the median duration of ICU stay of 9 days (7-11) vs. 19 days (13-20) were all in favor of TPD (P < 0.01). This study suggests that there are better outcomes with TPD compared to CRRT in the treatment of critically ill patients with AKI.

Colonoscopy in automated peritoneal dialysis patients: value of prophylactic antibiotics: a prospective study on a single antibiotic.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the need for prophylactic antibiotics in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) patients undergoing flexible colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients on automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized into 2 age- and sex-matched groups; group A (46 patients) with intraperitoneal (IP) ceftazidime prior to colonoscopy and group B (47 patients) without prophylactic antibiotics. The relations between peritonitis and different parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Of all colonoscopies, 60.2% showed normal findings, 17.2% with colonic polyps at different sites, 12.9% with angiodysplastic-like lesions, 5.4% with colonic ulcer(s), 3.2% with diverticulae without diverticulitis and 1.1% had transverse colon stricture. Post-colonoscopy peritonitis was documented in 3 (6.5%) and 4 (8.5%) patients in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.2742); the causative organisms were mainly gram negative bacteria. Polypectomy was not associated with increased peritonitis episodes. By multiple logistic regression analysis, diabetes mellitus was the only independent variable that entered into the best predictive equation over the development of post-colonoscopy peritonitis but not antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between prophylactic antibiotic use prior to colonoscopy in APD patients and the risk of peritonitis was lacking. Only diabetes mellitus appears to be of significance. Polypectomy did not increase peritonitis episodes.

The Phantom of Metformin-Induced Lactic Acidosis in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients: Time to Reconsider with Peritoneal Dialysis Treatment.

♦ OBJECTIVE: Metformin continues to be the safest and most widely used antidiabetic drug. In spite of its well-known benefits; metformin use in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is still restricted. Little has been reported about the effect of peritoneal dialysis (PD) on metformin clearance and the phantom of lactic acidosis deprives ESRD patients from metformin therapeutic advantages. Peritoneal dialysis is probably a safeguard against lactic acidosis, and it is likely that using this drug would be feasible in this group of patients. ♦ MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 83 PD patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. All patients were on automated PD (APD). Metformin was administered in a dose of 500 - 1,000 mg daily. Patients were monitored for glycemic control. Plasma lactic acid and plasma metformin levels were monitored on a scheduled basis. Peritoneal fluid metformin levels were measured. In addition, the relation between plasma metformin and plasma lactate was studied. ♦ RESULTS: Mean fasting blood sugar (FBS) was 10.9 ± 0.5 and 7.8 ± 0.7, and mean hemoglobin A1-C (HgA1C) was 8.2 ± 0.8 and 6.4 ± 1.1 at the beginning and end of the study, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.1 ± 4.1 and 27.3 ± 4.5 at the beginning and at the end of the study, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall mean plasma lactate level across all blood samples was 1.44 ± 0.6. Plasma levels between 2 and 3 mmol/L were found in 11.8% and levels of 3 - 3.6 mmol/L in 2.4% plasma samples. Hyperlactemia (level > 2 and ≤ 5 mmol/L) was not associated with overt acidemia. None of our patients had lactic acidosis (levels > 5 mmol/L). Age ≥ 60 was a predictor for hyperlactemia. No relationship was found between plasma metformin and lactate levels. ♦ CONCLUSION: Metformin may be used with caution in a particular group of ESRD patients who are on APD. Metformin allows better diabetic control with significant reduction of BMI. Information on the relationship between metformin and plasma lactate levels is lacking. Peritoneal dialysis appears to be a safeguard against the development of lactic acidosis in this group of patients.