Biochemical Predictors of Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

It is estimated that 50% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have varying degrees of renal involvement. In this clinical biomarker development research, we examined in a retrospective study design the temporal changes in biochemical laboratory parameters in relation to the development of acute kidney injury (AKI). In a sample of 399 patients admitted from May 2020 to May 2021 to a tertiary health care intensive care unit (ICU), the incidence of AKI was 27.3%, and the median time to AKI was on 7th day of ICU admission. Most common etiology of AKI was kidney hypoperfusion. Within 72 h of developmental of low blood pressure, 63.76% developed AKI. The likelihood of AKI was higher in those with elevated serum ferritin, aspartate transaminase, and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). A cutoff value of 750.3 ng/mL [area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.777] for serum ferritin, and 40.05 U/L for alanine aminotransferase (AUC = 0.677) 1 day before development of AKI displayed, respectively, a sensitivity of 76.2% and 64.3%, whereas the specificity was 69.5% and 64.1%, respectively, for these two biochemical predictors. A cutoff value of platelets (152.50 × 109/L [AUC = 0.75]) measured 4 days before development of AKI, displayed 83.3% sensitivity and 16.4% specificity. Taken together, our study thoroughly examined the temporal association of various clinical and laboratory parameters with AKI and prediction models were developed as per results of the time series data. These observations in a tertiary health care setting contribute to ongoing efforts for biomarker discovery and development using routine biochemical tests so as to forecast AKI in patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Function, Mental and Physical Health in Recovered COVID-19 Patients Requiring Invasive Versus Non-invasive Oxygen Therapy: A Prospective Follow-Up Study Post-ICU Discharge.

Background Survivors of COVID-19 pneumonia may have residual lung injury and poor physical and mental health even after discharge. We hypothesized that COVID-19 severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients needing mechanical ventilation may be at a greater risk of deterioration in pulmonary function, mental health, and quality of life (QOL). This study analyses the differences in pulmonary function, mental health, and QOL after recovery, in patients having received non-invasive oxygen therapy versus invasive mechanical ventilation during ICU stay. Methods Patients aged >18 years, who had completed 3 months post ICU discharge, with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS, were consecutively enrolled from May 1 to July 31, 2021. Patients were allocated into Group A - having required high flow nasal cannula (HFNC)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and Group B - having received invasive mechanical ventilation. Pulmonary function tests, 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), and health-related quality of life were compared. Results Of the 145 eligible patients, 31 were lost to follow-up and 21 died. Seventy-four patients were allocated into Groups A (57 patients) and B (17 patients). In Group A, abnormal forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow in mid-half of FVC (FEF25-75), and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) values were obtained in 27 (47.37%), 43 (75.44%), 11 (19.3%), and 25 (43.86%) patients, and in Group B, in 13 (76.47%), 17 (100%), 1 (5.88%), and 8 (47%) patients, respectively. No patient had abnormal FEV1/FVC. All Group B patients had a restrictive pattern in spirometry as compared to 77% in Group A. Group B had a lower arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) (p=0.0019), % predicted FVC (p<0.0001), % predicted FEV1 (p=0.001), and 6-MWT distance (p<0.001). The physical component score in the short-form survey 12 questionnaire was higher in group A, p<0.001, whereas the mental component score was comparable. Conclusions Patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) have a greater risk of impaired pulmonary function and reduced QOL post-ICU discharge. This warrants a greater need for following these patients for better rehabilitation.

COVID-19: changing patterns among neurosurgical patients from North India, efficacy of repeat testing, and inpatient prevalence.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has affected surgical practice globally. Treating neurosurgical patients with the restrictions imposed by the pandemic is challenging in institutions with shared patient areas. The present study was performed to assess the changing patterns of neurosurgical cases, the efficacy of repeated testing before surgery, and the prevalence of COVID-19 in asymptomatic neurosurgical inpatients. METHODS: Cases of non-trauma-related neurosurgical patients treated at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were reviewed. During the pandemic, all patients underwent a nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test to detect COVID-19 at admission. Patients who needed immediate intervention were surgically treated following a single COVID-19 test, while stable patients who initially tested negative for COVID-19 were subjected to repeated testing at least 5 days after the first test and within 48 hours prior to the planned surgery. The COVID-19 positivity rate was compared with the local period prevalence. The number of patients who tested positive at the second test, following a negative first test, was used to determine the probable number of people who could have become infected during the surgical procedure without second testing. RESULTS: Of the total 1769 non-trauma-related neurosurgical patients included in this study, a mean of 337.2 patients underwent surgery per month before COVID-19, while a mean of 184.2 patients (54.6% of pre-COVID-19 capacity) underwent surgery per month during the pandemic period, when COVID-19 cases were on the rise in India. There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients undergoing surgery for a ruptured aneurysm, stroke, hydrocephalus, and cerebellar tumors, while the number of patients seeking surgery for chronic benign diseases declined. At the first COVID-19 test, 4 patients (0.48%) tested were found to have the disease, a proportion 3.7 times greater than that found in the local community. An additional 5 patients tested positive at the time of the second COVID-19 test, resulting in an overall inpatient period prevalence of 1%, in contrast to a 0.2% national cumulative caseload. It is possible that COVID-19 was prevented in approximately 67.4 people every month by using double testing. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has changed the pattern of neurosurgical procedures, with acute cases dominating the practice. Despite the fact that the pandemic has not yet reached its peak in India, COVID-19 has been detected 3.7 times more often in asymptomatic neurosurgical inpatients than in the local community, even with single testing. Double testing displays an incremental value by disclosing COVID-19 overall in 1 in 100 inpatients and thus averting its spread through neurosurgical services.

The Aftermath of COVID-19 Lockdown- Why and How Should We Be Ready?

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome, coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) has inexplicably and irreversibly changed the way of neurosurgery practice. There has been a substantial reduction in neurosurgical operations during the period of lockdown. The lockdown might be the most effective measure to curtail viral transmission. Once we return to the normalization of the lifestyle, there will be a backlog of unoperated pending cases along with the possibility of further spread of the coronavirus. METHODS: We reviewed the available literature and protocols for neurosurgical practice in different geographic locations. We drafted a consensus statement based on the literature and protocols suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO) and various professional societies to prevent the spread of SARS-COV2 while streamlining the neurosurgical practice. RESULTS: The consensus statement suggests the patient triage, workflow, resource distribution, and operational efficacy for care providers at different stages of management. The priority is set at personal protection while ensuring patients' safety, timely management, and capacity building. We performed a detailed subsection analysis for the management of trauma and set up for COVID-free hospitals for simultaneous management of routine neurosurgical indications. In this time of medicolegal upheaval, special consent from the patients should be taken in view of the chances of delay in management and the added risk of corona infection. The consensus statements are applicable to neurosurgical setups of all capacities. CONCLUSION: Along with the glaring problem of infection, there is another threat of neurosurgery emergency building up. This wave may overwhelm the already stretched systems to the hilt. We need to flatten this curve while avoiding contagion. These measures may guide neurosurgery practitioners to effectively manage patients ensuring the safety of caregivers and care seekers both.