Risk assessment of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly recognized illness that has spread rapidly all over the world. More and more reports highlight the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19. Our study aims to identify in-hospital VTE risk and bleeding risk in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 138 consecutively enrolled patients with COVID-19 and identified in-hospital VTE and bleeding risk by Padua Prediction Score and Improve bleed risk assessment model. The clinical data and features were analyzed in VTE patients. RESULTS: Our findings identified that 23 (16.7%) patients with COVID-19 were at high risk for VTE according to Padua prediction score and 9 (6.5%) patients were at high risk of bleeding for VTE prophylaxis according to Improve prediction score. Fifteen critically ill patients faced double high risk from thrombosis (Padua score more than 4 points in all 15 [100%] patients) and hemorrhage (Improve score more than 7 points in 9 [60.0%] patients). Thrombotic events were identified in four patients (2.9%) of all COVID-19 patients. All of them were diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis by ultrasound 3 to 18 days after admission. Three (75.0%) were critically ill patients, which means that the incidence of VTE among critically ill patients was 20%. One major hemorrhage happened in critically ill patients during VTE treatment. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered both a high risk of thrombosis and bleeding risks. More effective VTE prevention strategies based on an individual assessment of bleeding risks were necessary for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Comparison of transvaginal repair versus laparoscopic repair of lower-segment cesarean scar defects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate transvaginal repair versus laparoscopic repair of cesarean scar defects (CSDs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 67 symptomatic women with CSDs who attended a tertiary hospital in Beijing, China, between July 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017. The participants underwent either transvaginal repair (n=31) or laparoscopic repair (n=36). Medical costs, perioperative outcomes, and surgical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant between-group differences were found at baseline. The mean thickness of the residual myometrium increased from 1.71 ± 0.67 mm before surgery to 4.41 ± 2.09 mm after surgery in the transvaginal repair group (P<0.001), and from 1.81 ± 0.93 to 4.68 ± 1.96 mm in the laparoscopic repair group (P<0.001). The duration of menses after surgery was less than 10 days in both the transvaginal repair group (n=30, 96.3%) and the laparoscopic repair group (n=30, 83.9%; P=0.113). Operative time and medical costs were both lower in the transvaginal repair group than in the laparoscopic repair group (P<0.001). Conception rates for the two groups were similar among women who desired fertility. CONCLUSION: Transvaginal repair of CSD was associated with reduced operative times and medical costs when compared with laparoscopic repair.