Cirugía endoscópica endonasal durante la pandemia COVID-19: protocolo de actuación / Endoscopic endonasal surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: Management guideline

La actual pandemia por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 está planteando una serie de desafíos al modo en que ejercemos la actividad médica y quirúrgica. En concreto, dentro de la neurocirugía se ha visto que los abordajes endoscópicos endonasales suponen un elevado riesgo de contagio para el personal sanitario que interviene en la misma, por lo que, inicialmente, la recomendación fue evitar dichas cirugías. Dado que la pandemia se ha extendido en el tiempo y desconocemos cuándo se podrá controlar, se deben proponer nuevas soluciones para continuar con la realización de dichos abordajes de manera segura. Ante la falta de protocolos establecidos, planteamos el siguiente, en el que se establecen, de modo conciso, las medidas a tomar tanto en cirugía urgente como programada, además de la descripción de un nuevo dispositivo de protección-aspirado (Maskpirator) AU)

Current SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic is challenging medical and surgical activities. Specifically, within neurosurgery, endoscopic endonasal approaches pose a high risk of contagion for healthcare personnel involved in it. Initially, the recommendation was to avoid such surgeries. However, the pandemic has dragged on and new solutions must be proposed to continue carrying out these approaches safely. Given the lack of established protocols, we propose the following one, which concisely establishes the measures to be taken in both urgent and scheduled surgery. In addition, a new protecti (AU)n-aspiration device (Maskpirator) is described.

[Endoscopic endonasal surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: Management guideline]. / Cirugía endoscópica endonasal durante la pandemia COVID-19: protocolo de actuación.

Current SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic is challenging medical and surgical activities. Specifically, within neurosurgery, endoscopic endonasal approaches pose a high risk of contagion for healthcare personnel involved in it. Initially, the recommendation was to avoid such surgeries. However, the pandemic has dragged on and new solutions must be proposed to continue carrying out these approaches safely. Given the lack of established protocols, we propose the following one, which concisely establishes the measures to be taken in both urgent and scheduled surgery. In addition, a new protection-aspiration device (Maskpirator) is described.

Endoscopic endonasal surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: Management guideline.

Current SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic is challenging medical and surgical activities. Specifically, within neurosurgery, endoscopic endonasal approaches pose a high risk of contagion for healthcare personnel involved in it. Initially, the recommendation was to avoid such surgeries. However, the pandemic has dragged on and new solutions must be proposed to continue carrying out these approaches safely. Given the lack of established protocols, we propose the following one, which concisely establishes the measures to be taken in both urgent and scheduled surgery. In addition, a new protection-aspiration device (Maskpirator) is described.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Streptococcus anginosus Group Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although Streptococcus anginosus group (SAG) endocarditis is considered a severe disease associated with abscess formation and embolic events, there is limited evidence to support this assumption. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with definite SAG endocarditis in 28 centers in Spain and Italy. A comparison between cases due to SAG endocarditis and viridans group streptococci (VGS) or Streptococcus gallolyticus group (SGG) was performed in a 1:2 matched analysis. RESULTS: Of 5336 consecutive cases of definite endocarditis, 72 (1.4%) were due to SAG and matched with 144 cases due to VGS/SGG. SAG endocarditis was community acquired in 64 (88.9%) cases and affected aortic native valve in 29 (40.3%). When comparing SAG and VGS/SGG endocarditis, no significant differences were found in septic shock (8.3% vs 3.5%, P = .116); valve disorder, including perforation (22.2% vs 18.1%, P = .584), pseudoaneurysm (16.7% vs 8.3%, P = .108), or prosthesis dehiscence (1.4% vs 6.3%, P = .170); paravalvular complications, including abscess (25% vs 18.8%, P = .264) and intracardiac fistula (5.6% vs 3.5%, P = .485); heart failure (34.7% vs 38.9%, P = .655); or embolic events (41.7% vs 32.6%, P = .248). Indications for surgery (70.8% vs 70.8%; P = 1) and mortality (13.9% vs 16.7%; P = .741) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SAG endocarditis is an infrequent but serious condition that presents a prognosis similar to that of VGS/SGG.

Non-HACEK gram negative bacilli endocarditis: Analysis of a national prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis (IE) due to non-HACEK bacilli (Haemophilus species, Actinobacillus, Cardiobacterium, Eikenella, or Kingella) is uncommon and poorly described. The objectives of this study were to describe non-HACEK Gram-Negative Bacilli (GNB) IE cases and compare characteristic of IE produced by Enterobacterales and non-fermenting (NF) GNB. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2018, 3910 consecutive patients with definitive IE diagnosis, defined with Modified Duke criteria, either clinical or pathological criteria (e.g. demonstration of non-HACEK GNB in valve culture)were prospectively included. RESULTS: A total of 104 IE cases were caused by non-HACEK GNB (2.6%). Compared to IE due to other microorganisms (excluding HACEK GNB), patients with non-HACEK GNB IE presented with higher age (71 years [IQR 62-78] vs 68 years [IQR: 57-77]; p = 0.026), higher proportion of women (52% vs 31.5%, p < 0.001), higher Charlson Index (5 [IQR: 4-8] vs 4 [IQR 3-7], p = 0.003) and higher in-hospital mortality (36.5% vs 27.1%, p = 0.034). Enterobacterales cases were more frequently associated with genitourinary focus (32.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.001). NFGNB endocarditis more frequently affected right valves (20.0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.033), had more common healthcare-related acquisition (67.5% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.030) and venous catheter as focus (40.0% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.019). In the multivariant model, factors related with hospital mortality were: age (OR 1.05, 95%CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.042), prosthetic valve (OR 2.31, 95%CI 0.90-5.88, p = 0.080), and not performing surgery when indicated (OR 3.60, 95%CI 1.17-11.05, p = 0.025).Patients treated with quinolone combination had lower mortality (OR 0.29; 95%CI 0.09-0.96; p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Non-HACEK GNB IE is a rare infection characterized by affecting elderly patients with high comorbidity, nosocomial acquisition and unfavorable outcome. Age, prosthetic valve and not performing surgery when indicated are associated with mortality.

Validation of a Quick Flow Cytometry-Based Assay for Acute Infection Based on CD64 and CD169 Expression. New Tools for Early Diagnosis in COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives: Several parameters aid in deciphering between viral and bacterial infections; however, new tools should be investigated in order to reduce the time to results and proceed with an early target-therapy. Validation of a biomarker study, including CD64 and CD169 expression, was conducted. Material and Methods: Patients with active SARS-CoV-2 infection (ACov-2), bacterial infection (ABI), healthy controls, and antiretroviral-controlled chronic HIV infection were assessed. Whole blood was stained and, after lysing no-wash protocol, acquired by flow cytometry. The median fluorescence intensity (MFI) of CD64 and CD169 was measured in granulocytes, monocytes, and lymphocytes. The CD64 MFI ratio granulocytes to lymphocytes (CD64N) and CD169 MFI ratio monocytes to lymphocytes (CD169Mo) were evaluated as biomarkers of acute bacterial and viral infection, respectively. Results: A CD64N ratio higher than 3.3 identified patients with ABI with 83.3 and 85.9% sensitivity and specificity, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 83.5%. In contrast, other analytic or hematological parameters used in the clinic had lower AUC compared with the CD64N ratio. Moreover, a CD169Mo ratio higher than 3.3 was able to identify ACov-2 with 91.7 and 89.8 sensitivity and specificity, with the highest AUC (92.0%). Conclusion: This work confirms the previous data of CD64N and CD169Mo ratios in an independent cohort, including controlled chronic viral HIV infection patients as biomarkers of acute bacterial and viral infections, respectively. Such an approach would benefit from quick pathogen identification for a direct-therapy with a clear application in different Health Care Units, especially during this COVID pandemic.