Search

Background: Cefoxitin has shown in vitro activity against Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacterales. Outcome data regarding cefoxitin as a carbapenem sparing agent in the management of urinary tract infections (UTI) are scarce. We sought to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of cefoxitin as compared to ertapenem. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at our quaternary care institution between May 2015 and March 2019. We identified all patients who received cefoxitin for the treatment of UTI during the study period and used Charlson Comorbidity Index to select a matching cohort from patients who received ertapenem. Primary end points were clinical and microbiological cure. Results: Thirty patients who received cefoxitin were matched with 55 patients who received ertapenem. Clinical cure was marginally in favor of ertapenem: 83.2% in cefoxitin group versus 96.8% in ertapenem group ( P = .042). However, 90-day recurrence was in favor of cefoxitin: 13.5% in cefoxitin group versus 34.8% in ertapenem group ( P = .045). Microbiologic cure was not significant between the 2 groups with 88.6% success in cefoxitin versus 100% in ertapenem. Additionally, the group difference on 30-day recurrence or relapse rates and the 90-day mortality rate were not clinically significant. Conclusion: Cefoxitin achieved similar microbiologic cure rate when compared to ertapenem for the treatment of UTI caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacterales. No significant differences were found in 30-day recurrence/relapse or mortality rates. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to identify the clinical sittings in which cefoxitin could be used as a carbapenem-sparing agent in the treatment of UTI.

Background Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could develop severe disease requiring critical care admission. Case reports indicated high incidence of hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which might be related to the drugs. Objective We sought to determine the risk factors associated with HTG in this population and to investigate the relationship between HTG and lipase. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted at our hospital between March 1 and June 30, 2020. Patients were included if they were ≥18 years old, admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and had triglycerides (TG) checked during their hospital stay. Results Of the 111 critically ill patients, 103 patients were included. Males comprised 88.3% of the sample. The median TG at baseline was 197.4 (IQR: 139.8-283) mg/dL. The lipase median level at baseline was 23.00 (IQR: 0.00-69.50) IU/L. The results of the mixed-effects logistic regression analysis indicated that patient-level variables, favipiravir use, blood glucose level, and propofol use were significantly associated with HTG. There was no relationship between lipase and TG levels over time. Furthermore, TG concentrations over time showed a similar trend to inflammatory markers. Conclusion and Relevance The incidence of clinically significant HTG was high and was associated with propofol and favipiravir use. HTG might reflect the high inflammatory state in these patients. Clinicians should look at the full picture before changing therapies based only on HTG. Our findings need to be replicated in a larger prospective study.

Background: The optimal treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. Favipiravir, an RNA polymerase inhibitor, has been used for COVID-19 but its clinical role and safety have not been established. Methods: We evaluated the outcomes of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 on favipiravir as part of combination therapy between March 1 and June 1, 2020. Favipiravir was given at a loading dose of 1600 mg orally every 12 hours for 2 doses, followed by a maintenance dose of 600 mg orally every eight hours. We performed a retrospective assessment of virologic clearance, improvement in oxygenation, clinical improvement and possible adverse effects. Results: One hundred and nine patients received favipiravir for a mean duration of 5.32 days. Mean time from symptom onset to initiation of favipiravir (day 0) was 4.89 days. Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 7 days and those receiving Conclusion: Early use of favipiravir as part of combination therapy was associated with improved outcomes, a low mortality rate and a high rate of clinical and oxygenation improvement in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. There was no impact on virologic clearance. No severe adverse effects were recorded. The effect of favipiravir as monotherapy and as part of early combination therapy need to be elucidated further in randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, elective surgical procedures have been delayed. Even with the implementation of surgical societies' recommendations, patient safety remains a concern. This study evaluates the postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bariatric surgery after reopening (RO) elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: All patients who underwent bariatric surgery from September 2015 to July 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two cohorts: the pre-COVID-19 (PC) cohort and the RO cohort. Propensity score weighting was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Our study included 1076 patients, 1015 patients were in the PC and 61 patients in the RO. Sixty-four percent were female with a mean age of 37 years and median body mass index of 41 kg/m(2). There were no statistically significant differences in 30 days perioperative outcomes, including emergency department visits 24.8% PC versus 19.7% RO (p = 0.492), readmission 4.2% PC versus 8.2% RO (p = 0.361), reoperation 2.6% PC versus 0% RO (p = 0.996), and major complications 4.0% PC versus 4.9% RO (p = 0.812). No patients in the RO contracted COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: With the appropriate policies and precautionary measures, there appear to be no differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and Aim: We have previously shown in a retrospective analysis that the plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) rises significantly post-Ramadan in levothyroxine-treated hypothyroid patients, possibly as a result of lifestyle alterations and time restrictions during the nonfasting period from dusk until dawn. The aim of this study is to determine the best time to instruct patients to take levothyroxine during Ramadan so as to minimize changes in thyroid function tests during this period. Methods: In a randomized prospective design, hypothyroid patients taking levothyroxine were randomized to receive instructions to take levothyroxine at one of the following 3 times during Ramadan: (group 1) at dusk 30-min before Iftar meal, (group 2) 3 or more hours after Iftar meal, or (group 3) at dawn 30-min before Suhur meal. Thyroid function tests were performed within 3 months before Ramadan and within 6 weeks post-Ramadan. Data from patients with at least 1 blood test before or after Ramadan were analyzed using mixed-effects regression models. Results: Plasma TSH levels were available at one or more time points for 148 patients, group 1 (n = 50), group 2 (n = 46), and group 3 (n = 52). A statistically significant within-patient increase in plasma TSH was seen in patients at the 25th percentile pre-Ramadan in groups 2 and 3 (p values Conclusions: Our data suggest that instructing patients to take levothyroxine at the time of breaking the fast 30 min before the Iftar meal minimizes unfavorable changes in plasma TSH post-Ramadan. In contrast, instructing patients to take levothyroxine 3 h post-Iftar or 30 min before Suhur led to a greater rise in post-Ramadan TSH.

Introduction: Although post-endoscopy fever (PEF) without colon perforation or haemorrhage is believed to be rare, incidence, risk factors and the causes in the adult population have not been fully investigated. Endogenous immune response, bacteria translocation, contaminated endoscopes, or drug-induced fever are all protentional reasons that can lead to elevated temperature. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the incidence of PEF and identify the risk factors associated with the development of PEF and its outcomes.Material and Methods: Over a three-month period, 1054 non-hospitalised patients who had an endoscopic procedure at Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi received a post-procedure phone call within the first 24 hours. After identifying patients with fever and obtaining verbal consent, patients were enrolled in the study using a standardised telephone interview.Results: Thirty-four patients with PEF were identified. The highest temperature measured was 39.8 degrees Celsius. The most common single procedure performed was oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (41.2%). Colonoscopy was performed as a single procedure in 17.6% and double procedure (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) in 41.2% of patients. Polypectomy was performed in only 5 patients (14.7%). Multiple biopsies were performed in 26 of the 34 patients (76.5%). Propofol was used in all endoscopy procedures and the dose was directly related to the duration of the procedure. Logistic regression revealed that no significant group differences across procedure types existed in terms of adjusted odds of fever. However, results also indicated that age has a significant negative relationship with fever – higher age is associated with lower odds of fever (b= -0.033, p = 0.024).Conclusion: PEF is an unpleasant side effect and it is associated with patient discomfort, dissatisfaction and fear during the post-endoscopy recovery. Although our findings do not fully explain the possible mechanisms underlying post-endoscopy fever, this study data should increase awareness about PEF as a common side effect related to endoscopy.

Introduction Both surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement are effective interventions for treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. Data from landmark randomized trials have shown comparable improvement in aortic valve hemodynamics and left ventricular remodeling. Whether similar patterns will be observed in real-world practice has not been completely investigated. Purpose To compare the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on short- and intermediate-term changes in aortic valve hemodynamics and left ventricular reverse-remodeling. Methods A total of 213 patients with severe AS were referred for TAVR (n=137) or SAVR (n=76) at a single center (August/ 2015-Feb/ 2021). Patient demographics and echocardiographic parameters of aortic valve stenosis severity were collected retrospectively. Changes over-time in aortic valve area, mean gradient, dimensionless index, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), and ventricular septal thickness were examined using linear mixed models. Results Patients undergoing TAVR were older with higher STS risk scores and a greater burden of comorbidities (Table). Over a median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 4–31), both groups experienced a significant reduction in aortic valve mean gradient (25.7 mmHg with TAVR and 18.8 mmHg with SAVR), with no significant between-group difference (P=0.15). Aortic valve dimensionless index significantly increased in TAVR and SAVR groups (0.23 and 0.13, respectively) and was more pronounced in the TAVR group (P=0.01). Similarly, aortic valve area increased significantly in both groups (0.66 cm2 and 0.42 cm2, respectively) without a significant across-group difference (P=0.07). On the other hand, left ventricular ejection fraction did not change significantly over time (−0.61 and 1.15 EF points, respectively) with no significant between-group difference at 12 months (P=0.06). Ventricular septal thickness was significantly reduced in both groups, with no significant between group difference (P=0.4; Figure). Conclusion In this real-world experience, both TAVR and SAVR were associated with significant improvement in aortic valve hemodynamic parameters and modest reverse left ventricular remodeling. Furthermore, these changes were comparable with both modalities, adding to available evidence from randomized clinical trials on beneficial effects of both TAVR and SAVR. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Table 1Figure 1

Purpose: To investigate all cases of multifocal intraocular lens (MFIOL) exchange, with specific focus on indications for exchange and evaluation of postoperative outcomes, in a tertiary care, multi-specialty ophthalmology practice.Setting/Venue: Academic Referral Center/Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi – Abu Dhabi, United Arab EmiratesMethods: This retrospective case series identified all patients that presented to a large academic practice over a 4-year period that were intolerant to MFIOL technology and thus required intraocular lens (IOL) exchange. All patients reported poor vision despite correction of reversible ocular comorbidities, including dry eye and residual refractive error. Outcomes reviewed include subjective visual complaints, IOL-type, visual acuity, refractive error, ocular comorbidities, and surgical outcomes. Endpoints examined include mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), and residual refractive astigmatism. Results: Six eyes of five patients required MFIOL exchange. All IOL’s exchanged were trifocal IOL’s. IOL exchange occurred between 6 to 72 months following primary phacoemulsification. Each patient had multiple ocular comorbidities, ranging from keratoconjunctivitis sicca to longstanding intermediate uveitis and macular pathology. Postoperatively, subjective visual complaints resolved in all patients. Objective mean changes in UDVA, CDVA, MRSE and residual astigmatism were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Thorough preoperative evaluation is required prior to MFIOL placement in order to rule out ocular comorbidities that may impair visual quality. In patients with MFIOL intolerance due to irreversible ocular comorbidities, IOL exchange to a monofocal IOL is safe, effective, and results in subjective improvement in vision.

Highlights • When comparing stroke admissions from March 1st-May 10th in 2019 and 2020 at a single comprehensive stroke center in Middle East, there was a 41.9% increase in stroke admissions in 2020. A higher rate of large vessel occlusion (LVO) and significant delay in initiation of mechanical thrombectomy after hospital arrival was observed in 2020. • Among all COVID-19 admissions in 2020, 5.24% patients suffered stroke including 3.21% with ischemic and 2% with hemorrhagic stroke. • Patients with COVID-19 and ischemic stroke were significantly younger, predominantly male, had fewer vascular risk factors, had more severe clinical presentation, and higher rate of LVO ccompared to ischemic stroke patients without COVID-19 • For hemorrhagic stroke, COVID-19 patients did not differ from non-COVID-19 patients., Objective: To compare ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients with COVID-19 to non-COVID-19 controls, and to describe changes in stroke admission patterns during the pandemic. Methods:This is a single center, retrospective, observational study. All consecutive patients admitted with primary diagnosis of ischemic/ hemorrhagic stroke between March1st -May10th 2020 were included and compared with the same time period in 2019. Results: There was a 41.9% increase in stroke admissions in 2020 (148 vs 210,P = .001). When comparing all ischemic strokes, higher rate of large vessel occlusion (LVO) (18.3% vs 33.8%,P = .008) and significant delay in initiation of mechanical thrombectomy after hospital arrival (67.75 vs 104.30 minutes,P = .001) was observed in 2020. When comparing all hemorrhagic strokes, there were no differences between the two years. Among 591 COVID-19 admissions, 31 (5.24%) patients with stroke including 19 with ischemic (3.21%) and 12 with hemorrhagic stroke (2.03%) were identified. Patients with COVID-19 and ischemic stroke were significantly younger (58.74 vs 48.11 years,P = .002), predominantly male (68.18% vs 94.74%,P = .016), had lesser vascular risk factors, had more severe clinical presentation (NIHSS 7.01 vs 17.05,P

BackgroundSyphilitic uveitis is re-emerging alongside the systemic infection. In July 2017, an international group of uveitis-specialised ophthalmologists formed the International Ocular Syphilis Study Group to define current practice patterns.Methods103 Study Group members based in 35 countries completed a 25-item questionnaire focused on case load, clinical presentations, use and interpretation of investigations, treatment and clinical indicators of poor prognosis.ResultsMembers managed a mean of 6.1 patients with syphilitic uveitis in clinics that averaged 707 annual cases of uveitis (0.9%); 53.2% reported increasing numbers over the past decade. Patients presented to more members (40.2%) during secondary syphilis. Uveitis was usually posterior (60.8%) or pan (22.5%); complications included optic neuropathy, macular oedema and posterior synechiae. All members diagnosed syphilitic uveitis using serological tests (simultaneous or sequential testing algorithms), and 97.0% routinely checked for HIV co-infection. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis was ordered by 90.2% of members, and 92.7% took uveitis plus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) or fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS) to indicate neurosyphilis. Patients were commonly co-managed with infectious disease physicians, and treated with penicillin for at least 10–14 days, plus corticosteroid. Features predicting poor outcome included optic neuropathy (86.3%) and initial misdiagnosis (63.7%). Reasons for delayed diagnosis were often practitioner-related. 82.5% of members tested every patient they managed with uveitis for syphilis.ConclusionThis comprehensive report by an international group of uveitis-specialised ophthalmologists provides a current approach for the management of syphilitic uveitis.

Background and Aim: We previously showed in a retrospective analysis that the plasma TSH rises significantly post-Ramadan in levothyroxine-treated hypothyroid patients, possibly as a result of changes in the eating habit during the non-fasting period from dusk until dawn. The aim of this study is to determine the best time for taking levothyroxine during Ramadan in order to minimize changes in thyroid function tests. Methods: in a randomized prospective design, hypothyroid patients taking levothyroxine for greater than 6-months were randomized to take levothyroxine at one of the following 3 times during Ramadan: (group 1) at dusk after a prolonged fast and 30-minutes before the Iftar meal, (group 2) ≥ 3-hours after the Iftar meal, or (group 3) at dawn 30-minutes before Suhur meal. Patients were instructed to allow a minimum of 3-hours between the last meal and levothyroxine and to refrain from eating and drinking for at least 30-minutes after taking levothyroxine. Thyroid function tests were performed within 3-months before Ramadan and within 6-weeks post Ramadan. To estimate intent-to-treat effects, we examined pre- and post-Ramadan thyroid function tests in relation to the assigned levothyroxine administration times. Results: 147 patients were randomized into the study and the respective number of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 were 50, 46 and 51. The mean age of participants was 43.5±12.4 years [range 21.0-86.0] and 78% were females with no statistical differences in the mean age or gender distribution between the 3 groups. The respective pre-Ramadan mean TSH values for the 3 groups were 2.49 mIU/L, 2.16 mIU/L and 3.37 mIU/L with no significant differences at baseline. Post-Ramadan mean TSH values were 2.47 mIU/L, 4.26 mIU/L and 3.85 mIU/L for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The pre- and post-Ramadan mean TSH differences were significant only for group 2, who took levothyroxine 3-hours post-Iftar (P-value 0.041). There were no significant differences in the free-T4 levels across the 3-groups before and after Ramadan. In a subset of 85 patients, the preferred times for levothyroxine administration during Ramadan were 44.7% before Iftar, 50.6% post-Iftar and only 4.7% were in favor of taking the medication before Suhur meal. Conclusions: Levothyroxine-treated hypothyroid patients who took levothyroxine 3-hours after the main Iftar meal showed a significant increase in plasma TSH post-Ramadan, possibly reflecting a reduced time period between levothyroxine administration and the previous meal. There was no significant change in the mean plasma TSH for patients taking levothyroxine at dusk before Iftar or at dawn before Suhur. The least patient-preferred time for taking levothyroxine was at dawn before Suhur possibly due to time constraints before the start of fasting.