Descriptive analysis of long COVID sequelae identified in a multidisciplinary clinic serving hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: There are emerging data of long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) comprising a diversity of symptoms. The aim of this study was to systematically describe and measure pulmonary and extra-pulmonary post-COVID-19 complications in relation to acute COVID-19 severity. METHODS: Patients attending a standard of care 3 months post-hospitalisation follow-up visit and those referred by their general practitioner because of persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms were included. Patients underwent symptomatic, quality of life, pulmonary (lung function and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT)), cardiac (high-resolution ECG), physical (1-min sit and stand test (1-MSTST), handgrip strength, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET)) and cognitive evaluations. RESULTS: All 34 hospitalised and 22 out of 23 non-hospitalised patients had ≥1 complaint or abnormal finding at follow-up. Overall, 67% of patients were symptomatic (Medical Research Council (MRC) ≥2 or COPD assessment test (CAT) ≥10), with no difference between hospitalised versus non-hospitalised patients. Pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (D LCO)) <80% of predicted) was impaired in 68% of patients. D LCO was significantly lower in those hospitalised compared to non-hospitalised (70.1±18.0 versus 80.2±11.2% predicted, p=0.02). Overall, 53% had an abnormal HRCT (predominantly ground-glass opacities) with higher composite computed tomography (CT) scores in hospitalised versus non-hospitalised patients (2.3 (0.1-4.8) and 0.0 (0.0-0.3), p<0.001). 1-MSTST was below the 25th percentile in almost half of patients, but no signs of cardiac dysfunction were found. Cognitive impairments were present in 59-66% of hospitalised and 31-44% of non-hospitalised patients (p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Three months after COVID-19 infection, patients were still symptomatic and demonstrated objective respiratory, functional, radiological and cognitive abnormalities, which were more prominent in hospitalised patients. Our study underlines the importance of multidimensional management strategies in these patients.

Electrochemotherapy for colorectal cancer using endoscopic electroporation: a phase 1 clinical study.

Background and study aims Electrochemotherapy is an anticancer treatment that uses electric pulses to facilitate uptake of chemotherapeutic drugs in tumor cells and has proven to have a high local cytotoxic effect with minimal adverse events. Electrochemotherapy has mostly been used in treatment of cutaneous metastases but development of a new endoscopic electrode device has made treatment of colorectal tumors possible. This first-in-man multicenter phase I study investigated safety and efficacy of electrochemotherapy using endoscopic electroporation in patients with colorectal tumors. Patients and methods Seven patients with colorectal tumors who were deemed ineligible for or had declined standard treatment were included. They were treated with bleomycin either intratumorally or intravenously and the electric pulses were delivered through the endoscopic electrode device. Safety and efficacy were assessed clinically and by scans immediately after treatment and adverse events were reported. Response was evaluated up to 6 months after treatment by scans (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) and endoscopic examinations. Results Seven patients aged 62 to 88 years with multiple comorbidities were included and had one or two treatments each. Post-treatment scans showed tumor responses in the treated areas and no damage to surrounding tissues. Only a few grade one adverse events were reported. Three patients had preoperative rectal bleeding, of which two reported cessation of bleeding and one reported decreased bleeding. Conclusion This first-in-man study shows that electrochemotherapy for colorectal tumors using the endoscopic electrode device can induce local tumor response and is safe also for fragile elderly patients with comorbidities.

Utility of multiple rule out CT screening of high-risk atraumatic patients in an emergency department-a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Several large trials have evaluated the effect of CT screening based on specific symptoms, with varying outcomes. Screening of patients with CT based on their prognosis alone has not been examined before. For moderate-to-high risk patients presenting in the emergency department (ED), the potential gain from a CT scan might outweigh the risk of radiation exposure. We hypothesized that an accelerated "multiple rule out" CT screening of moderate-to-high risk patients will detect many clinically unrecognized diagnoses that affect change in treatment. METHOD: Patients ≥ 40 years, triaged as high-risk or moderate-to-high risk according to vital signs, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were scanned with a combined ECG-gated and dual energy CT scan of cerebrum, thorax, and abdomen. The impact of the CT scan on patient diagnosis and treatment was examined prospectively by an expert panel. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the study, (53% female, mean age 73 years [age range, 43-93]). The scan lead to change in treatment or additional examinations in 37 (37%) patients, of which 24 (24%) were diagnostically significant, change in acute treatment in 11 (11%) cases and previously unrecognized malignant tumors in 10 (10%) cases. The mean size specific radiation dose was 15.9 mSv (± 3.1 mSv). CONCLUSION: Screening with a multi-rule out CT scan of high-risk patients in an ED is feasible and result in discovery of clinically unrecognized diagnoses and malignant tumors, but at the cost of radiation exposure and downstream examinations. The clinical impact of these findings should be evaluated in a larger randomized cohort.