Aspirin Use Is Associated With Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in short eyes.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of preoperative biometry-based formulas to intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with respect to predicting refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in short eyes. SETTING: Private practice and community-based ambulatory surgery center. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: Eyes with an axial length (AL) shorter than 22.1 mm underwent cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. The predicted residual refractive error was calculated preoperatively using Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using IA. The postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was compared with the predicted SE to evaluate the accuracy of each aforementioned method. RESULTS: Fifty-one eyes from 38 patients met criteria to be included in the analysis. Without optimizing the formulas specifically for short eyes, the mean numerical errors (MNEs) associated with Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, and IA were -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.30 to 0.13), -0.14 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.07), +0.26 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.47), +0.11 (95% CI, -0.10 to 0.32), +0.07 (95% CI, -0.14 to 0.28), and +0.00 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.21), respectively (P < .001). The proportion of eyes within ±0.5 diopter (D) of the predicted SE were 49.0%, 43.1%, 52.9%, 52.9%, 60.8%, and 58.8%, respectively (P = .06). The prediction outcomes from IA were statistically better than Haigis, but not other formulas. When formula and IA predictions differed by 0.5 D or more, IA's ability to recommend a more emmetropic outcome was no better than chance (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative aberrometry is not significantly different from the best preoperative biometry-based methods available for IOL power selection in short eyes.

The Role of Toll-Like Receptor 2 and 4 Innate Immunity Pathways in Intracortical Microelectrode-Induced Neuroinflammation.

We have recently demonstrated that partial inhibition of the cluster of differentiation 14 (CD14) innate immunity co-receptor pathway improves the long-term performance of intracortical microelectrodes better than complete inhibition. We hypothesized that partial activation of the CD14 pathway was critical to a neuroprotective response to the injury associated with initial and sustained device implantation. Therefore, here we investigated the role of two innate immunity receptors that closely interact with CD14 in inflammatory activation. We implanted silicon planar non-recording neural probes into knockout mice lacking Toll-like receptor 2 (Tlr2-/-), knockout mice lacking Toll-like receptor 4 (Tlr4-/-), and wildtype (WT) control mice, and evaluated endpoint histology at 2 and 16 weeks after implantation. Tlr4-/- mice exhibited significantly lower BBB permeability at acute and chronic time points, but also demonstrated significantly lower neuronal survival at the chronic time point. Inhibition of the Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) pathway had no significant effect compared to control animals. Additionally, when investigating the maturation of the neuroinflammatory response from 2 to 16 weeks, transgenic knockout mice exhibited similar histological trends to WT controls, except that knockout mice did not exhibit changes in microglia and macrophage activation over time. Together, our results indicate that complete genetic removal of Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) was detrimental to the integration of intracortical neural probes, while inhibition of TLR2 had no impact within the tests performed in this study. Therefore, approaches focusing on incomplete or acute inhibition of TLR4 may still improve intracortical microelectrode integration and long term recording performance.

Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in axial myopia.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry (ORA) and the Hill-radial basis function (RBF) formula with other formulas based on preoperative biometry in predicting residual refractive error after cataract surgery in eyes with axial myopia. SETTING: Private practice, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: Eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 25.0 mm had cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. For each eye, the 1-center Wang-Koch AL-optimized Holladay 1 formula was used to select an IOL targeting emmetropia. Residual refractive error was predicted preoperatively using the SRK/T, Holladay 1 and 2, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperatively using wavefront aberrometry. The postoperative refraction was compared with the preoperative and intraoperative predictions. RESULTS: The study comprised 37 patients (51 eyes). The mean numerical errors ± standard error associated with using the SRK/T, Holladay 1, AL-optimized Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF formulas and intraoperative wavefront aberrometry were 0.20 ± 0.06 diopters (D), 0.33 ± 0.06 D, -0.02 ± 0.06 D, 0.24 ± 0.06 D, 0.19 ± 0.06 D, 0.22 ± 0.06 D, and 0.056 ± 0.06 D, respectively (P < .001). The proportion of patients within ±0.5 D of the predicted error was 74.5%, 62.8%, 82.4%, 79.1%, 73.9%, 76.7%, and 80.4%, respectively (P = .090). Hyperopic outcomes occurred in 70.6%, 76.5%, 49.0%, 74.4%, 76.1%, 74.4%, and 45.1% of the eyes, respectively (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative wavefront aberrometry was better than all formulas based on preoperative biometry and as effective as the AL-optimized Holladay 1 formula in predicting residual refractive error and reducing hyperopic outcomes. The Hill-RBF formula's performance was similar to that of the fourth-generation formulas.