Risk factors for COVID-19 and their association with mortality in Ecuadorian patients admitted to the ICU: A retrospective cohort multicentric study.

Several risk factors were associated with mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in intensive care units (ICU). We assessed the effect of risk factors related to the characteristics and clinical history of the population, laboratory test results, drug management, and type of ventilation on the probability of survival/discharge from the ICU. A retrospective cohort multicentric study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and December 2021. Data were collected from 6 hospitals in 5 cities in Ecuador. The primary outcome was ICU survival/discharge. Survival analysis was conducted using semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards models. Of those admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, (n = 991), mean age was 56.76 ±â€…13.14, and 65.9% were male. Regarding the primary outcome, 51.1% (n = 506) died and 48.9% (n = 485) survived. Of the group that died, their mean age was higher than the survivors (60.7 vs 52.60 years, respectively), and they had a higher prevalence of comorbidities such as arterial hypertension (37.2% vs 20.4%, respectively) and diabetes mellitus (26.9% vs 15.7%, respectively), with P < .001. In ventilatory management, 32.7% of patients used noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula, and 67.3% required invasive ventilatory support. After adjusting for confounders, Cox regression analysis showed that patients were less likely to be discharged alive from the ICU if they met the following conditions: arterial hypertension (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.83 95% CI 0.723-0.964), diabetes mellitus (HR = 0.80 95% CI 0.696-0.938), older than 62 years (HR = 0.86 95% CI 0.790-0.956), obese (body mass index ≥ 30) (HR = 0.78 95% CI 0.697-0.887), 1 unit increase in SOFA score (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.937-0.961), PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100 mm Hg (HR = 0.84 95% CI 0.786-0.914), and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (HR = 0.68 95% CI 0.614-0.769). Risk factors associated with increased mortality were older age, obesity, arterial hypertension, and diabetes. Factors such as male gender, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute kidney injury, and cancer reported in other investigations did not have the same effect on mortality in our study.

Global Practice Patterns in the Evaluation of Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Results of a World-Wide Survey and Expert Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. RESULTS: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. CONCLUSIONS: This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Artificial Intelligence in Andrology: From Semen Analysis to Image Diagnostics.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has gained a lot of momentum in the last decades and has been applied to various fields of medicine. Advances in computer science, medical informatics, robotics, and the need for personalized medicine have facilitated the role of AI in modern healthcare. Similarly, as in other fields, AI applications, such as machine learning, artificial neural networks, and deep learning, have shown great potential in andrology and reproductive medicine. AI-based tools are poised to become valuable assets with abilities to support and aid in diagnosing and treating male infertility, and in improving the accuracy of patient care. These automated, AI-based predictions may offer consistency and efficiency in terms of time and cost in infertility research and clinical management. In andrology and reproductive medicine, AI has been used for objective sperm, oocyte, and embryo selection, prediction of surgical outcomes, cost-effective assessment, development of robotic surgery, and clinical decision-making systems. In the future, better integration and implementation of AI into medicine will undoubtedly lead to pioneering evidence-based breakthroughs and the reshaping of andrology and reproductive medicine.

Controversy and Consensus on Indications for Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations.

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing was recently added to the sixth edition of the World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Many conditions and risk factors have been associated with elevated SDF; therefore, it is important to identify the population of infertile men who might benefit from this test. The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to indications for SDF testing, compare the relevant professional society guideline recommendations, and provide expert recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.

The Renaissance of Male Infertility Management in the Golden Age of Andrology.

Infertility affects nearly 186 million people worldwide and the male partner is the cause in about half of the cases. Meta-regression data indicate an unexplained decline in sperm concentration and total sperm count over the last four decades, with an increasing prevalence of male infertility. This suggests an urgent need to implement further basic and clinical research in Andrology. Andrology developed as a branch of urology, gynecology, endocrinology, and, dermatology. The first scientific journal devoted to andrological sciences was founded in 1969. Since then, despite great advancements, andrology has encountered several obstacles in its growth. In fact, for cultural reasons, the male partner has often been neglected in the diagnostic and therapeutic workup of the infertile couple. Furthermore, the development of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) has driven a strong impression that this biotechnology can overcome all forms of infertility, with a common belief that having a spermatozoon from a male partner (a sort of sperm donor) is all that is needed to achieve pregnancy. However, clinical practice has shown that the quality of the male gamete is important for a successful ART outcome. Furthermore, the safety of ART has been questioned because of the high prevalence of comorbidities in the offspring of ART conceptions compared to spontaneous conceptions. These issues have paved the way for more research and a greater understanding of the mechanisms of spermatogenesis and male infertility. Consequently, numerous discoveries have been made in the field of andrology, ranging from genetics to several "omics" technologies, oxidative stress and sperm DNA fragmentation, the sixth edition of the WHO manual, artificial intelligence, management of azoospermia, fertility in cancers survivors, artificial testis, 3D printing, gene engineering, stem cells therapy for spermatogenesis, and reconstructive microsurgery and seminal microbiome. Nevertheless, as many cases of male infertility remain idiopathic, further studies are required to improve the clinical management of infertile males. A multidisciplinary strategy involving both clinicians and scientists in basic, translational, and clinical research is the core principle that will allow andrology to overcome its limits and reach further goals. This state-of-the-art article aims to present a historical review of andrology, and, particularly, male infertility, from its "Middle Ages" to its "Renaissance", a golden age of andrology.