RESUMO
Background COVID-19 is a prothrombotic disease that can cause thromboembolism and microthrombi, which could lead to multiorgan failure and death. Since COVID-19 is a relatively new disease, there are guidelines for anticoagulation dosing for COVID-19 patients without consensus on the dosing. We studied the effects of different doses of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia on any differences in need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We also analyzed the patient population who benefited most from anticoagulation. Methodology We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who were admitted with the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection with positive polymerase chain reaction, pneumonia (confirmed either by chest X-ray or CT chest), and hypoxemia (oxygen saturation of <94%, while on room air). These patients were studied for outcomes (the need for high-flow oxygen, the requirement for mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality) for different doses of anticoagulation (prophylactic, escalated, and therapeutic). Results The sample consists of 132 subjects, predominantly males (116, 87%), with a mean age of 59 years and a standard deviation of 15. About one-third of the participants had diabetes, and more than 50% had hypertension. Additionally, 27 (20.3%) had a history of heart disease, and 70 (53%) of the subjects were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at some point during the study. Among those admitted to the ICU, about 11 (8%) subjects required mechanical ventilation and 16 (12%) passed away during the study. Those who died had higher use of high-flow oxygen, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation and had a longer stay on mechanical ventilation. There was no significant difference in mortality or need for mechanical ventilation for any strategy of anticoagulation. Conclusions Different doses of anticoagulation did not show any statistically significant relationship between the need for mechanical ventilation and mortality. More patients on high-flow oxygen had received escalated doses of anticoagulation as compared to those who were not on high-flow oxygen. Anticoagulation levels did not have any statistically significant effect on overall survival of patients.
RESUMO
The current report is the case of a 30-year-old male patient who presented with symptomatology suggestive of appendicitis. However, careful history-taking and laboratory tests led to the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile colitis, resulting in successful nonsurgical management of this patient. Although both appendicitis and C. difficile colitis are common conditions, they are rarely diagnosed concurrently. This is reflected by paucity of literature describing this manifestation. Given this current presentation, the authors contend that the manifestation of extracolonic colitis within the appendix is possibly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed as an acute appendicitis and thus potentially results in unnecessary surgical intervention. This report reminds physicians to consider the medical approach to managing acute appendicitis given the possibility of underlying C. difficile colitis as the causative factor.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation outside the operating room (OR) is mainly performed by intensive care (IC) physicians and emergency department (ED) physicians. We hypothesized that difference in practice patterns exists between these two groups of physicians. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all endotracheal intubations that were performed out of OR over a fi ve year period at our health care facility. Practice patterns of IC and ED physicians were compared regarding use of (a) video laryngoscopy, (b) paralytic agents, (c) waveform capnography, and (d) use of larger size of endotracheal tube (internal diameter ≥ 8 mm). RESULTS: A total of 201 patients underwent out of OR intubations over a 5 year period. IC physicians used more often than ED physicians video laryngoscopy (67% vs. 49%; p = 0.008), waveform capnography (99% vs. 86%; p = 0.001) and larger size endotracheal tubes (95% vs. 60%; p < 0.001). Conversely, paralytic agents were used less frequently by IC than ED physicians (12% vs. 51%; p < 0.001). The success of fi rst intubation attempt was higher by IC than ED physicians (82% vs. 67%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: IC physicians more often adhered to currently considered preferable practices for endotracheal intubation than ED physicians in this single center retrospective study. Although larger scale studies are needed to unveil the effects of different practice patterns on short and long term outcomes, the present study identifi es opportunity to bridge practice gaps that could lead to improved outcomes.