Search

In December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged as the causative agent for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a clinical syndrome with high incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Part of the pathophysiology of COVID-19-induced ARDS is explained by increased dead space ventilation from pulmonary microthrombi; this is supported by the existence of alveolar capillary microthrombi found on autopsies [1, 2]. This has prompted the use of therapeutic anticoagulation and thrombolytics [3–5]. Thus far, no clinical trials have been completed to evaluate the use of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) to treat COVID-19. The objective of this study was to determine whether rt-PA administration decreases dead space ventilation in patients with COVID-19., COVID19-induced ARDS is partly explained by the presence of microthrombi, motivating the use of thrombolytics. This study shows that thrombolytics decrease dead space ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS patients. https://bit.ly/2GdM44a

ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature pertaining to asynchronous automated electronic notifications of laboratory results to clinicians.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Collaboration were queried for studies pertaining to automated electronic notifications of laboratory results. A title review was performed on the primary results, with a further abstract review and full review to produce the final set of included articles.ResultsThe full review included 34 articles, representing 19 institutions. Of these, 19 reported implementation and design of systems, 11 reported quasi-experimental studies, 3 reported a randomized controlled trial, and 1 was a meta-analysis. Twenty-seven articles included alerts of critical results, while 5 focused on urgent notifications and 2 on elective notifications. There was considerable variability in clinical setting, system implementation, and results presented.ConclusionSeveral asynchronous automated electronic notification systems for laboratory results have been evaluated, most from >10 years ago. Further research on the effect of notifications on clinicians as well as the use of modern electronic health records and new methods of notification is warranted to determine their effects on workflow and clinical outcomes.

We present a patient with mitochondrial myopathy who developed rhabdomyolysis following treatment with clindamycin. While clindamycin is not yet linked to drug-induced rhabdomyolysis in the literature, other drugs with mechanisms of action similar to clindamycin have been shown to damage human host mitochondria. Given this, we contend that clindamycin may also be capable of causing mitochondrial injury, and that while in otherwise healthy patients it may not produce any negative clinical outcome, it can precipitate rhabdomyolysis in certain patients whose mitochondria are already vulnerable.

Purpose Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties. Materials and Methods Overall, 851 faculty members from 101 academic urology departments were organized by academic rank and fellowship completed. Research productivity was calculated using the h-index , calculated from the Scopus database. Results There was no statistical difference in h-index found between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained academic urologists. The highest h-indices were seen among urologic oncologists (18.1 ± 0.95) and nonfellowship-trained urologists (14.62 ± 0.80). Nearly 70% of department chairs included in this analysis were urologic oncologists or general urologists. Conclusions No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.