Search

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate computed tomography (CT)-based bone density analysis at the level of thoracic vertebra 12 (Th12) as a screening method for decreased bone density in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Interobserver variability was analyzed. Secondary aims were to assess the prevalence of CT-based low bone density upon ICU admission in a cohort of COVID-19 patients and to assess the potential effect of long-term ICU stay on bone density in these patients. Retrospective single-center cohort study. ICU of the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. Patients admitted to the ICU of the LUMC between March 1st, 2020 and February 1st, 2022 with a diagnosis of COVID-19, and a length of ICU stay of ≥ 21 days. In the included patients both baseline chest CT scans (obtained upon ICU admission) and follow-up chest CT scans (obtained ≥ 21 days after ICU admission) were available for analysis. A total of 118 CT scans in 38 patients were analyzed. There was a good interobserver variability, with an overall mean absolute difference (between measurements of three observers) of 9.7 Hounsfield Units (HU) and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). The effect of intravenous contrast administration on bone density measurements was small (+ 7.5 HU (95% CI 3.4-11.5 HU)) higher in contrast enhanced CT images compared to non contrast enhanced CT images). Thirty-seven percent of patients had a bone density < 140 HU, suggestive of osteoporosis. No significant difference was found between bone density upon ICU admission and bone density at follow-up (≥ 21 days after ICU admission). Vertebral CT-based bone density analysis using routine CT scans is an easily applicable method to identify ICU patients with decreased bone density, which could enable enrollment in osteoporosis prevention programs. A high prevalence of low bone density was found in our cohort of ICU patients. There were no changes observed in bone density between baseline and follow-up measurements., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To identify, besides maternal age and the number of previous pregnancy losses, additional characteristics of couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) that improve the prediction of an ongoing pregnancy., Design: Hospital-based cohort study in couples who visited specialized RPL units of two academic centers between 2012 and 2020., Setting: Two academic centers in the Netherlands., Patients: Clinical data from 526 couples with unexplained RPL were used in this study., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measures: The final model to estimate the chance of a subsequent ongoing pregnancy was determined using a backward selection process and internally validated using bootstrapping. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve)., Results: Subsequent ongoing pregnancy was achieved in 345 of 526 couples (66%). The number of previous pregnancy losses, maternal age, paternal age, maternal body mass index, paternal body mass index, maternal smoking status, and previous in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment were predictive of the outcome. The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63 compared with 0.57 when using only the number of previous pregnancy losses and maternal age., Conclusions: The identification of additional predictors of a subsequent ongoing pregnancy after RPL, including male characteristics, is significant for both clinicians and couples with RPL. At the same time, we showed that the predictive ability of the current model is still limited and more research is warranted to develop a model that can be used in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: International guidelines recommend to offer supportive care during a next pregnancy to couples affected by recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). In previous research, several options for supportive care have been identified and women's preferences have been quantified. Although it is known that RPL impacts the mental health of both partners, male preferences for supportive care have hardly been explored., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in couples who visited a specialized RPL clinic in the Netherlands between November 2018 and December 2019. Both members of the couples received a questionnaire that quantified their preferences for supportive care in a next pregnancy and they were asked to complete this independently from each other. Preferences for each supportive care option were analysed on a group level (by gender) and on a couple level, by comparing preferences of both partners., Results: Ninety-two questionnaires (completed by 46 couples) were analysed. The overall need for supportive care indicated on a scale from 1 to 10 was 6.8 for men and 7.9 for women (P = 0.002). Both genders preferred to regularly see the same doctor with knowledge of their obstetric history, to make a plan for the first trimester and to have frequent ultrasound examinations. A lower proportion of men preferred a doctor that shows understanding (80% of men vs. 100% of women, P = 0.004) and a doctor that informs on wellbeing (72% vs. 100%, P = ≤0.000). Fewer men preferred support from friends (48% vs. 74%, P = 0.017). Thirty-seven percent of men requested more involvement of the male partner at the outpatient clinic, compared to 70% of women (P = 0.007). In 28% of couples, partners had opposing preferences regarding peer support., Conclusions: While both women and men affected by RPL are in need of supportive care, their preferences may differ. Current supportive care services may not entirely address the needs of men. Health care professionals should focus on both partners and development of novel supportive care programs with specific attention for men should be considered., (© 2021. The Author(s).)