Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception of Oral Health Among Parents of Children at Risk of Infective Endocarditis: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious complication primarily affecting patients with cardiac conditions. It is widely recognized that oral microorganisms contribute to the development of IE. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and perception of parents of children at risk of IE by studying the preventive measures employed by them. MATERIALS AND METHODS:  A self-constructed questionnaire composed of 14 questions was distributed among parents of children aged 0-12 years with known cardiac diseases. The parents/caregivers who were attending the pediatric outpatient clinics at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) were selected randomly. Results: A total of 112 parents responded to this questionnaire. Almost 50% of the participants in this study reported that their children do not brush their teeth regularly, with only 12.5% of them brushing twice a day. Regarding the role of parents in supervising oral hygiene, 62.5% of them stated that they only provide advice but do not watch their child brush their teeth, and only 9.8% of parents are actively involved in advising and watching their children brush their teeth. In this study, 95.5% of parents agreed that maintaining good dental health was crucial for overall body health, and 58% of the participants showed interest in receiving more education about oral health and its impact on overall well-being. To assess the statistical significance, a nonparametric Pearson's chi-square test for fitness was employed. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was used to report the statistical significance of the results. Conclusion: While the parents demonstrated adequate knowledge of oral health, their attitudes toward it were lacking. So, both parents and children require a modification in their attitudes toward dental care and oral health.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data.

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Tocilizumab effectiveness in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (T-MVC-19 Study): a multicenter real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab, and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. Survival analyses with inverse propensity score treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were conducted. To account for immortal bias, we used Cox proportional modeling with time-dependent covariance. Competing risk analysis was performed for the extubation endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 556 (tocilizumab = 193, control = 363) patients were included. Males constituted the majority of the participants (69.2% in tocilizumab arm,74.1% in control arm). Tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in mortality with hazard ratio [(HR) = 0.82,95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.62-1.10] in the Inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) analysis and (HR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.64-1.16) in the PSM analysis. However, tocilizumab was associated with an increased rate of extubation (33.6%) compared to the control arm (11.9%); subdistributional hazards (SHR) = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.86-5.16). CONCLUSIONS: Although tocilizumab was not found to be effective in reducing mortality, extubation rate while on mechanical ventilation was higher among tocilizumab treated group.

Thromboembolic Diseases Among Intensive Care Unit Patients in Al-Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia.

Background Venous and arterial thrombotic conditions are the two types of thromboembolic events. Main venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), while arterial thromboses include ischemic stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD). Aim This study aimed to assess the prevalence of thromboembolic events among intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Al-Qassim region, Saudi Arabia. Patients and methods This is a retrospective chart review of ICU patients diagnosed with thromboembolic disease who were seen at the intensive care unit of King Fahad Specialist Hospital between July 2020 and June 2022. Data were obtained from hospital medical files and gathered into an Excel sheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). All data analyses were carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY, USA). Results Of the 38 patients included, 52.6% were males (mean age: 60.7; standard deviation (SD): 23.9). The most common risk factors for thromboembolic events were immobilization (23.7%) and major surgeries (18.4%). The incidence of DVT was 42.1%, while PE was 39.5%. Seven patients were detected with combined incidence (DVT and PE). Mortality rates accounted for 39.5%. It is interesting to note that the prevalence of patients who use heparin treatment was statistically significantly higher among DVT patients (p=0.043). Conclusion The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was 42.1%, while pulmonary embolism occurred in 39.5%. However, 18.4% of the ICU patients had an occurrence of both DVT and PE. Furthermore, immobilization was identified as the most common risk factor for thromboembolic events, followed by major surgeries. More research is necessary to determine the incidence and prevalence of thromboembolic disease and its manifestations.