The Effects of Smoking in Patients in the Intensive Care Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to see the effects of smoking prevalence, the length of stay regarding the usage of cigarettes, and the effects on the mortality of COVID-19 in our Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods: This is a retrospective single-centered study that was done in the ICU on patients with COVID-19 between 16th of March and 16th of May in 2020. The demographic data, comorbidity status, the units they were accepted from, clinical symptoms, respiratory support, prevalence of smoking, length of stay in the ICU, and mortalities of the patients were recorded. There were two groups: Smoker and non-smoker. There were 1100 COVID-19 patients and 150 of these were treated in ICU unit. 95 patient's data were accessed. Statistical analyses were performed with the Scientific Package for the Social Science (version 21.0; SPSS Inc.). Results: There were 69.4% non-smoker and 35.8% smoker, and 5.3% of the smoker did smoke before (Table 1). The average age of the patients in smoker group was less than nonsmoker. The incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was higher in smokers (Table 2). The most common symptom was cough and it was 82% in nonsmoker group and 76.5% in smoker group (Table 3). In both groups, respiratory support was provided by IMV (Table 4). There was no relationship between two groups according to age (p=0.044) and gender of patients (p:0.062) (Table 2). The length of ICU stay was 7.6 days for smoking patients in the ICU and 9.3 days for non-users. While the mortality was 52.9% for smokers, it was 39.3% for non-smokers. No statistical correlation was found between smoking status, length of stay in ICU, and survival (Fig. 1). Smoking is blamed among the factors that cause this aggressive process, which can progress to respiratory failure and result in mortality in COVID-19 disease. Conclusion: Some studies also claim that smoking can be protective. There is still no clarity on this issue. It was concluded that smoking has no effect on the duration of ICU stay and mortality in patients treated in the ICU with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Favipiravir Experience in COVID-19 Patients at a Tertiary Center Intensive Care Unit.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare intensive care unit (ICU) and overall hospital mortality in patients treated with favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir for COVID-19. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between March 10 and May 10, 2020, from patients' records admitted to ICU due to COVID-19. Laboratory data, clinical characteristics, ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay were compared in patients treated with favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir. Results: A total of 100 patients' data were investigated. Favipiravir was used as the treatment for 85% of patients, with the rest treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Clinical and laboratory data of both antiviral treatment groups were similar. Length of hospital stay was 16 (9-24) days with favipiravir and 8.5 (5-12.5) days with lopinavir-ritonavir (p=0.002). Length of ICU stay for favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir groups were 8 (5-15) days and 4 (3-9) days, respectively (p=0.011). ICU mortality was 65.9% for the favipiravir and 80% for lopinavir-ritonavir (p=0.002). Hospital mortality for favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir was 67.1% and 80%, respectively (p=0.001). Conclusion: The mortality in patients treated with favipiravir was less than patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. Favipiravir needs more attention and trials for its effect to be confirmed.

The Effect of Diabetes Mellitus on Mortality in Patients Hospitalized Intensive Care Unit in Covid-19 Pandemic.

Backgorund and aim: There are many studies on the effects of Diabetes Mellitus on the clinical course in COVID-19 patients. Factors that increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 disease and increase disease progression have been caused, and diabetes mellitus is one of them. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of Diabetes Mellitus in patients treated in the intensive care unit in respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia, and the effect of Diabetes Mellitus on the length of stay in intensive care and mortality. METHODS: Our study is a single-center retrospective study. The study includes patients hospitalized in our COVID intensive care unit between March 16, 2019, and May 16, 2020 Patients over 18 years of age with and without a history of Diabetes Mellitus were compared in 2 groups. Demographic data of the patients, length of stay in the intensive care unit, respiratory support methods, presence of other comorbid diseases, effects of Diabetes Mellitus to mortality in ICU were recorded. RESULTS: The information of 150 patients was obtained in the COVID-19 intensive care units of our hospital. Diabetes Mellitus was detected in 49 of the patients hospitalized in intensive care. 34.7% of these patients were female and 65.3% were male. There was no significant difference in survival in both groups (p = 0.942). The BMI of the patients with Diabetes Mellitus was 27.07 ± 2.55, significantly higher (p = 0.005). Intensive care stay periods were similar in both groups. The presence of hypertension was significantly higher in those with Diabetes Mellitus (p = 0.000). There was no statistically significant difference between respiratory support methods. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes Mellitus did not affect the duration of stay in the intensive care unit and mortality in patients who were followed up and treated in the intensive care unit due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on intensive care unit survival.

This study compared the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and evaluated the effect of vaccination with CoronaVac on admission to ICU. Patients admitted to ICU due to COVID-19 between 1 April 2021 and 15 May 2021 were enrolled to the study. Clinical, laboratory, radiological parameters, hospital and ICU mortality were compared between vaccinated patients and eligible but unvaccinated patients. Patients over 65 years old were the target population of the study due to the national vaccination schedule. Data from 90 patients were evaluated. Of these, 36 (40.0%) were vaccinated. All patients had the CoronaVac vaccine. Lactate dehydrogenase and ferritin levels were higher in an unvaccinated group than vaccinated group (P = 0.021 and 0.008, respectively). SpO2 from the first arterial blood gas at ICU was 83.71 ± 19.50% in vaccinated, 92.36 ± 6.59% in unvaccinated patients (P = 0.003). Length of ICU and hospital stay were not different (P = 0.204, 0.092, respectively). ICU and hospital mortality were similar between groups (P = 0.11 and 0.70, respectively). CoronaVac vaccine had no effect on survival from COVID-19. CoronaVac's protective effect, especially on new genetic variants, should be investigated further.

Anxiety and burnout in anesthetists and intensive care unit nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to measure the levels of anxiety and burnout among healthcare workers, including attending physicians, residents, and nurses in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey analysis of healthcare workers in our institution. Data were collected on demographic variables, COVID-19 symptoms and test, disease status, anxiety level (assessed by the Beck Anxiety Inventory), and burnout level (measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory). Subscales of the burnout inventory were evaluated separately. RESULTS: A total of 104 participants completed the survey. Attending physicians, residents, and nurses constituted 25%, 33.7%, and 41.3% of the cohort, respectively. In comparison to untested participants, those tested for COVID-19 had a lower mean age (p = 0.02), higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores (p = 0.001, 0.004, respectively), and lower personal accomplishment scores (p = 0.004). Furthermore, moderate to severe anxiety was observed more frequently in tested participants than untested ones (p = 0.022). Moderate or severe anxiety was seen in 23.1% of the attending physicians, 54.3% of the residents, and 48.8% of the nurses (p = 0.038). Emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization scores differed depending on the position of the healthcare workers (p = 0.034, 0.001, 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study revealed higher levels of anxiety and burnout in younger healthcare workers and those tested for COVID-19, which mainly included residents and nurses. The reasons for these observations should be further investigated to protect their mental health.

The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare selective spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia with regard to postoperative recovery and fast-track eligibility in day surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty geriatric outpatient cases, with ASA II-III physical status and requiring short-duration transurethral intervention, were enrolled in the study. The cases were split into 2 groups: as general anesthesia (Group GA) and selective spinal anesthesia (Group SSA). Group GA (n = 30) received propofol 2 mg kg⁻¹ (until loss of eyelash reflex), remifentanil induction 0.5-1 µg kg⁻¹, and laryngeal mask. Maintenance was achieved by 4-6% desflurane in 60% N2O and 40% O2 along with remifentanil infusion at 0.05 µg /kg⁻¹ /min⁻¹. Drugs were discontinued after the withdrawal of the ureteroscope, and extubation was carried out with 100% O2. Group SSA (n = 30) received 0.5% spinal anesthesia via L4-5 space by 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg. Anesthesia preparation time, time to surgical anesthesia level, postoperative fast-tracking, and time to White-Song recovery score of 12, were noted. In the operating room, we evaluated hemodynamics, nausea/vomiting, surgeon and patient satisfaction with anesthesia, perioperative midazolam-fentanyl administration, postoperative pain, and discharge time. RESULTS: Anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, anesthesia-related time in the operating room, time to sit, and time to walk were significantly low in Group GA (p < 0.05), whereas time to fast-track eligibility, length of stay in the PACU, discharge time, and other parameters were similar in both of the groups. CONCLUSION: While anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, start time of surgery, time to sit, and time to walk were shorter in the General Anesthesia group, time to fast-track eligibility, phase 1 recovery time, and discharge time were similar among patients subjected to selective spinal anesthesia.

The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients

OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare selective spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia with regard to postoperative recovery and fast-track eligibility in day surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty geriatric outpatient cases, with ASA II-III physical status and requiring shortduration transurethral intervention, were enrolled in the study. The cases were split into 2 groups: as general anesthesia (Group GA) and selective spinal anesthesia (Group SSA). Group GA (n = 30) received propofol 2 mg kg-1 (until loss of eyelash reflex), remifentanil induction 0.5-1 µg kg-1, and laryngeal mask. Maintenance was achieved by 4-6 percent desflurane in 60 percent N2O and 40 percent O2 along with remifentanil infusion at 0.05 µg /kg-1 /min-1. Drugs were discontinued after the withdrawal of the ureteroscope, and extubation was carried out with 100 percent O2. Group SSA (n = 30) received 0.5 percent spinal anesthesia via L4-5 space by 0.5 percent hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg. Anesthesia preparation time, time to surgical anesthesia level, postoperative fast-tracking, and time to White-Song recovery score of 12, were noted. In the operating room, we evaluated hemodynamics, nausea/vomiting, surgeon and patient satisfaction with anesthesia, perioperative midazolam-fentanyl administration, postoperative pain, and discharge time. RESULTS: Anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, anesthesia-related time in the operating room, time to sit, and time to walk were significantly low in Group GA (p < 0.05), whereas time to fast-track eligibility, length of stay in the PACU, discharge time, and other parameters were similar in both of the groups. CONCLUSION: While anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, start time of surgery, time to sit, and time to walk were shorter in the General Anesthesia group, time to fast-track eligibility, phase 1 recovery time, and discharge time were similar among patients subjected to selective spinal anesthesia.