Antireflux surgery in patients with gastroesophageal reflux but a negative 24-hour pH study: late outcomes.

PURPOSE: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease often undergo a 24-hour pH test to confirm pathologic reflux before surgery. However, a negative pH test can occur in some individuals with reflux, and a case might still be made for antireflux surgery based on symptoms of reflux even in the absence of endoscopic esophagitis. The long-term outcomes in patients who underwent antireflux surgery despite negative preoperative test results were determined. METHODS: Patients were selected from a prospective database. A total of 745 patients met the inclusion criteria, which included typical esophageal reflux symptoms, absence of a large hiatus hernia, preoperative 24-hour pH study performed, endoscopy, and postoperative symptom and satisfaction follow-up available at 5 years. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on 24-hour pH study and endoscopy results: negative pH and negative endoscopy (n = 65), negative pH and positive endoscopy (n = 72), and positive pH (n = 608). The negative pH and negative endoscopy group underwent surgery based on clinical assessment and typical esophageal reflux symptoms. Baseline and follow-up outcomes at 5 years were evaluated using 0 to 10 analog scores, which assessed heartburn, dysphagia, and satisfaction with the overall outcome. Data were analyzed to compare the groups. RESULTS: The groups were well matched for demographics and preoperative symptom scores. At the median 5-year follow-up, clinical outcome scores were similar among the groups for heartburn, dysphagia, and overall satisfaction. The mean heartburn scores were 1.80 in the negative pH and negative endoscopy group, 1.88 in the negative pH and positive endoscopy group, and 1.91 in the positive pH group (P = .663). The mean satisfaction scores were high in all groups: 8.13, 7.31, and 7.72, respectively (P = .293). CONCLUSION: No difference in clinical outcome scores was observed. The negative pH and negative endoscopy group had high satisfaction scores and low heartburn and dysphagia scores. Our findings support antireflux surgery in well-selected symptomatic patients with a negative preoperative pH test.

Oxygen efficient respiratory Aid (OxEraTM) device: A safety study.

Background: Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) can develop pneumonia with severe complications. The Oxygen Efficient Respiratory Aid (OxEraTM) device has been granted SAPHRA approval for emergency COVID-19 pandemic use. The device has the potential to be used widely in the healthcare sector due to its efficient oxygen supply and adjustable wall positive expiratory pressure (PEP). Objectives: We assessed whether the OxEraTM device was safe to use in a healthy adult volunteer population. Our primary objective was to ensure there was no asphyxiation, as assessed by changes observed from baseline End Tidal Carbon Dioxide (ETCO2) exceeding 6.3 mmHg and above the 45 mmHg threshold. We also monitored changes in vital organ signs and assessed the pain and comfort of the participant at various intervals with changes in PEPs. Methods: This was an experimental safety study of the OxEraTM Device on 30 healthy participants at the ICU training centre of Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa. Each participant had basic vital-signs, ETCO2, and Oxygen saturation percentages (SpO2%) taken at baseline until the end of 2 h. In the first 20 min, the PEP was increased by 5 cmH20 until 20 min, then continued for the rest of the time on a PEP of 5 cmH20. At each interval, vital signs, subjective comfort, pain, and visual scores were measured. Results: Thirty healthy participants were enrolled. There was no significant difference in ETCO2 from baseline until 2 h. No participant experienced an increase in measured ETCO2 greater than 45 mmHg and no increase in ETCO2 from baseline was greater than 6.3 mmHg. The median increase in ETCO2 over the study period was 2 mmHg. There were no significant changes in respiratory rate and blood pressure. The heart rate decreased significantly (73-68 bpm). The VAS and comfort score had a significant increase over the 2 h from baseline of 0-2 at maximum; however, the PAS scores showed no significant increase. Conclusion: Overall the OxEraTM device achieved the safety endpoints set out. There was no sign of asphyxiation and there were appropriate physiological responses to changes in PEP once applied. The comfort of the mask did worsen over the 2 h; however, the scores were minimally worse on PEP application but improved once-off PEP. No adverse event was recorded at all.

Multiple opportunistic infections (pulmonary tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium complex and parvovirus B19) in a single patient.

INTRODUCTION: HIV infection is a common disease in the South African population. The virus can lead to the development of many opportunistic infections. This case study examines co-infection with three opportunistic infections and the need for clinical suspicion of infections in our HIV population. PATIENT PRESENTATION: A 36-year-old unemployed female residing in Soweto, Johannesburg, presented at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital (CHBAH). She was HIV positive, defaulting treatment, with no other comorbidities. She presented to CHBAH with general body weakness, diarrhoea, cough and constitutional symptoms; clinically she appeared pale and chronically ill. A differential diagnosis was made of multiple infections co-inhabiting the patient. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: The patient had blood, sputum, radiological and invasive bone marrow aspiration, and trephine biopsies completed. The investigations revealed that she was co-infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) and parvovirus B19. The TB and disseminated MAC infection were managed with rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, pyrazinamide and azithromycin, and reinitiation of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment was planned on further follow-up of the ARV drug resistance test. The parvovirus B19 infection was managed with immunoglobulins (Polygam) and steroids (prednisone). She was discharged successfully for further follow-up. CONCLUSION: A thorough history, clinical examination and subsequent targeted investigations are vital to arriving at the correct diagnosis or diagnoses. The case presented above serves to illustrate how three life-threatening opportunistic infections (OIs), all with differing treatments, may present in a single patient. Clinicians caring for immunosuppressed patients need to remain vigilant for the presence of multiple OIs occurring simultaneously.