Genomic characterization and Epidemiology of an emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant in Delhi, India

Delhi, the national capital of India, has experienced multiple SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in 2020 and reached a population seropositivity of over 50% by 2021. During April 2021, the city became overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases and fatalities, as a new variant B.1.617.2 (Delta) replaced B.1.1.7 (Alpha). A Bayesian model explains the growth advantage of Delta through a combination of increased transmissibility and partial reduction of immunity elicited by prior infection (median estimates; x1.5-fold, 20% reduction). Seropositivity of an employee and family cohort increased from 42% to 86% between March and July 2021, with 27% reinfections, as judged by increased antibody concentration after previous decline. The likely high transmissibility and partial evasion of immunity by the Delta variant contributed to an overwhelming surge in Delhi. One-Sentence SummaryDelhi experienced an overwhelming surge of COVID-19 cases and fatalities peaking in May 2021 as the highly transmissible and immune evasive Delta variant replaced the Alpha variant.

How did SARS-CoV-19 spread in India from Italy, Iran and China? Genetic surveillance of early cases and virus demography

SARS-CoV-19 after emerging from Wuhan, drastically devastated all sectors of human life by crushing down the global economy and increased psychological burden on public, government, and healthcare professionals. We manifested by analyzing 35 early coronavirus cases of India, that virus introduction in India, occurred from Italy, Iran and China and population demography apparently revealed a rapid population expansion after the outbreak with a present steady growth. We depicted nucleotide substitutions in structural genes, drove for the adaptive selection and plead for sequencing more genomes to facilitate identification of new emerged mutants, genetic evolution and disease transmission caused by coronavirus.

Comparative Evaluation of Continuous Thoracic Paravertebral Block and Thoracic Epidural Analgesia Techniques for Post-operative Pain Relief in Patients Undergoing Open Nephrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Open surgical procedures are associated with substantial postoperative pain; an alternative method providing adequate pain relief with minimal side effects is very much required. AIM: The aim of this study was a comparative evaluation of the efficacy of continuous thoracic paravertebral block (PVB) and thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) for postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing open nephrectomy. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and single-blind study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty adult patients undergoing open nephrectomy under general anesthesia were randomized to receive a continuous thoracic epidural infusion (Group E) or continuous thoracic paravertebral infusion (Group P) with bupivacaine 0.1% with 1 µg/ml fentanyl at 7 ml/h; both infusions were started after induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome measures were postoperative pain during rest (static pain), deep inspiration, coughing, and movement (getting up from supine to sitting position); the secondary outcome measures were postoperative nausea and vomiting, requirement of rescue antiemetic, hypotension, sedation, pruritus, motor block, and respiratory depression. These were assessed till the morning of the third postoperative day. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Results were analyzed by the one-way ANOVA, Chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U-test. P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Both the groups were similar with regard to demographic factors (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale scores at rest, deep breathing, coughing and movement, and postoperative fentanyl consumption were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05); the incidence of side effects was also similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous thoracic PVB is as effective as continuous thoracic EA in providing pain relief in patients undergoing open nephrectomy in the postoperative period. The side effect profile of the two techniques was also similar.

The effect of Valsalva maneuver in attenuating skin puncture pain during spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valsalva maneuver reduces pain by activating sinoaortic baroreceptor reflex arc. We planned this study to evaluate the role of valsalva in attenuating spinal needle-puncture pain. METHODS: Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II enrolled patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized into 3 groups of 30 each. Group I (Control): didn't blow; group II (Distraction): patients blew into rubber tube; Group III (Valsalva): blew into sphygmomanometer tube and raise mercury column up to 30 mmHg for at least 20 seconds. During above procedures, spinal puncture was performed with 25-gauge spinal needle. RESULTS: Eighty-two patient data were analyzed. Incidence of spinal puncture pain was reduced to 10% (3 of 27) in Valsalva group as compared to 100% (28 of 28 in control group and 27 of 27 in Distraction group) observed in other two groups (P < 0.05). Severity of lumbar puncture pain as assessed by visual analog scale (0-10; where 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst imaginable pain) presented as Median (Interquartile range) were significantly reduced in the Valsalva group (0.0 [0.0] as compared to other 2 groups 2.0 [0.0] in the Distraction group and 3.0 [0.8] in Control group) (P < 0.05). Regarding time taken by CSF to fill spinal needle hub, there was no difference among the three groups (P > 0.05). None patient of all groups had post dural puncture headache (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Valsalva can be performed routinely in ASA I and II patients undergoing spinal anesthesia as it is safe, painless and non-pharmacological method of pain attenuation.

The effect of Valsalva maneuver in attenuating skin puncture pain during spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: Valsalva maneuver reduces pain by activating sinoaortic baroreceptor reflex arc. We planned this study to evaluate the role of valsalva in attenuating spinal needle-puncture pain. METHODS: Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II enrolled patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized into 3 groups of 30 each. Group I (Control): didn't blow; group II (Distraction): patients blew into rubber tube; Group III (Valsalva): blew into sphygmomanometer tube and raise mercury column up to 30 mmHg for at least 20 seconds. During above procedures, spinal puncture was performed with 25-gauge spinal needle. RESULTS: Eighty-two patient data were analyzed. Incidence of spinal puncture pain was reduced to 10% (3 of 27) in Valsalva group as compared to 100% (28 of 28 in control group and 27 of 27 in Distraction group) observed in other two groups (P 0.05). None patient of all groups had post dural puncture headache (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Valsalva can be performed routinely in ASA I and II patients undergoing spinal anesthesia as it is safe, painless and non-pharmacological method of pain attenuation.

Comparative evaluation of esmolol and dexmedetomidine for attenuation of sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in neurosurgical patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study compared the efficacy of esmolol and dexmedetomidine for attenuation of the sympathomimetic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in elective neurosurgical patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 90 patients aged 20-60 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, either sex, scheduled for elective neurosurgical procedures were included in this study. Patients were randomly allocated to three equal groups of 30 each comprising of Control group (group C) 20 ml 0.9% saline intravenous (IV), group dexmedetomidine (group D) 1 µg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 20 ml IV and group esmolol (group E) 1.5 mg/kg diluted with 0.9% saline to 20 ml IV. All the drugs were infused over a period of 10 min and after 2 min induction of anesthesia done. Heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were recorded baseline, after study drug administration, after induction and 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, and 15 min after orotracheal intubation. RESULTS: In group D, there was no statistically significant increase in HR and blood pressure after intubation at any time intervals, whereas in group E, there was a statistical significant increase in blood pressure after intubation at 1, 2, and 3 min only and HR up to 5 min. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg is more effective than esmolol for attenuating the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation in elective neurosurgical patients.