Does the Thymus Index Predict COVID-19 Severity?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is a global health emergency that is straining health care resources. Identifying patients likely to experience severe illness would allow more targeted use of resources. This study aimed to investigate the association between the thymus index (TI) on thorax computed tomography (CT) and prognosis in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted between March 17 and June 30, 2020, in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The patients' clinical history and laboratory data were collected after receiving a signed consent form. Four experienced radiologists who were blinded to each other and patient data performed image evaluation. The appearance of the thymus was assessed in each patient using 2 published systems, including the TI and thymic morphology. Exclusion criteria were lack of initial diagnostic thoracic CT, previous sternotomy, pregnancy, and inappropriate images for thymic evaluation. A total of 2588 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 1231 of these with appropriate thoracic CT imaging were included. Multivariable analysis was performed to predict the risk of severe disease and mortality. RESULTS: The median age was 45 (interquartile range, 33-58) years; 52.2% were male. Two hundred forty-nine (20.2%) patients had severe disease, and 60 (4.9%) patients died. Thymus index was significantly associated with mortality and severe disease (odds ratios, 0.289 [95% confidence interval, 0.141-0.588; P = 0.001]; and 0.266 [95% confidence interval, 0.075-0.932; P = 0.038]), respectively. Perithymic lymphadenopathy on CT imaging had a significantly strong association with grades of TI in patients with severe disease and death ( V = 0.413 P = 0.017; and V = 0.261 P = 0.002, respectively). A morphologically assessable thymus increased the probability of survival by 17-fold and the absence of severe disease by 12-fold. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the thymus in patients with COVID-19 may provide useful prognostic data for both disease severity and mortality.

Barriers to Coronavirus Disease 19 vaccination in patients with obesity.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity are at a high risk of severe disease and death from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccination offers a safe and effective means of reducing this risk. The rate of COVID-19 vaccine refusal in patients with obesity is unknown. METHODS: Patients with obesity were administered validated questionnaires assessing COVID-19 fear, general vaccine hesitancy, and COVID-19-specific vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: 507 participants completed the study. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was high: Fifteen percent of patients refused COVID-19 vaccine. Hesitancy related to other vaccines was also high: Eight percent of patients refused a vaccine in the past, and 15% delayed a vaccine. Fear of side effects and doubts regarding effectiveness were the most common reasons for vaccine refusal. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high risk for complications, vaccine hesitancy is high among patients with obesity. Targeted public health interventions are critical to reduce vaccine hesitancy and improve vaccination rates.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on colonoscopy results - an overview.

<b>Aim:</b> Colorectal cancers are common cancers. Colonoscopy procedure, which is applied in the early diagnosis and treatment of this disease, has a very important role. In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic period on our colonoscopic procedures. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> In this observational study, the data of the patients who underwent colonoscopy in our General Surgery Endoscopy Unit, between March 11, 2019 and March 12, 2021 were scanned retrospectively. Patients under 18 years of age were excluded. The patients were divided into 2 groups. 1. Group patients between 11 March 2019-11 March 2020; patients in the pre-COVID-19 period, Group 2, on March 12, 2020-March 12, 2021; Grouped as the COVID-19 era. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> Data of 8285 patients were analyzed. A total of 4889 patients in Group 1 and 3396 patients in Group 2 were included in the study. The detection of precancerous polyps between the groups was found to be significantly higher in group 1 (p < 0.05) (4.3% vs 2.1). Similarly, the presence of precancerous polyps over the age of 65 was found to be significantly higher in the pre-covid group. In group 1, no significant difference was found in the evaluation of cancer patients according to gender (p > 0.05) (F/M: 1.2%/1.6%). In group 2, cancer patients were found to be significantly higher in males. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative effects in many areas, as well as on our colonoscopic procedures. Experienced centers continue to work to minimize these negative effects.

Have the Diagnoses of Patients Transported by Ambulances Changed in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

INTRODUCTION: Since December 2019, emergency services and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems have been at the forefront of the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic world-wide. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the reasons and the necessity of transportation to the emergency department (ED) by ambulance and the outcomes of these cases with the admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic period and during the same period in 2019. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted in which patients transported to the ED by ambulance in April 2019 and April 2020 were compared. The primary outcomes were the changes in the number and diagnoses of patients who were transferred to the ED by ambulance during the COVID-19 period. The secondary outcome was the need for patients to be transferred to the hospital by ambulance. RESULTS: A total of 4,466 patients were included in the study. During the COVID-19 period, there was a 41.6% decrease in ED visits and a 31.5% decrease in ambulance calls. The number of critically ill patients transported by ambulance (with diagnoses such as decompensated heart failure [P <.001], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] attack (P = .001), renal failure [acute-chronic; P = .008], angina pectoris [P <.001], and syncope [P <.001]) decreased statistically significantly in 2020. Despite this decrease in critical patient calls, non-emergency patient calls continued and 52.2% of the patients transported by ambulance in 2020 were discharged from the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting EMS use is important for evaluating the current state of emergency health care and planning to manage possible future outbreaks.

Treatment of COVID-19 patients with quercetin: a prospective, single center, randomized, controlled trial.

Scientific research continues on new preventive and therapeutic strategies against severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). So far, there is no proven curative treatment, and a valid alternative therapeutic approach needs to be developed. This study is designed to evaluate the effect of quercetin in COVID-19 treatment. This was a single-centre, prospective randomized controlled cohort study. Routine care versus QCB (quercetin, vitamin C, bromelain) supplementation was compared between 429 patients with at least one chronic disease and moderate-to-severe respiratory symptoms. Demographic features, signs, laboratory results and drug administration data of patients were recorded. The endpoint was that QCB supplementation was continued throughout the follow-up period from study baseline to discharge, intubation, or death. The most common complaints at the time of hospital admission were fatigue (62.4%), cough (61.1%), anorexia (57%), thirst (53.7%), respiratory distress (51%) and chills (48.3%). The decrease in CRP and ferritin levels was higher in the QCB group (all Ps were < 0.05). In the QCB group, the increase in platelet and lymphocyte counts was higher (all Ps were < 0.05). QCB did not reduce the risk of events during follow-up. Adjustments for statistically significant parameters, including the lung stage, use of favipiravir and presence of comorbidity did not change the results. While there was no difference between the groups in terms of event frequency, the QCB group had more advanced pulmonary findings. QCB supplement is shown to have a positive effect on laboratory recovery. While there was no difference between the groups in terms of event frequency, QCB supplement group had more advanced pulmonar findings, and QCB supplement is shown to have a positive effect on laboratory recovery/results. Therefore, we conclude that further studies involving different doses and plasma level measurements are required to reveal the dose/response relationship and bioavailability of QCB for a better understanding of the role of QCB in the treatment of SARS CoV-2.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy instead of laparoscopy to treat acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic period: single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the accepted standard treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC) in patients eligible for surgery. Percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) can provide a permanent treatment for high-risk patients for surgery or act as a bridge for later surgical treatment. This study is an evaluation of the use of PC during the current coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a single hospital. METHODS: Fifty patients with AC were admitted as of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey through June 2020. Patients with pancreatitis, cholangitis, and/or incomplete data were excluded from the study. Data of the remaining 36 patients included in the study were recorded and a descriptive statistical analysis was performed. The patients were divided into three groups: PC (n=14), only conservative treatment with antibiotherapy (OC) (n=14), and LC (n=8). The findings were compared with a group of 70 similar patients from the pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: The mean age of the pandemic period patients was 53 years (range: 26-78 years). The female/male ratio was 1.11. PC was preferred in eight (11%) patients in the same period of the previous year, whereas 14 (39%) patients underwent PC in the pandemic period. Four of the 36 pandemic patients were positive for COVID-19, including one member of the PC group. There was one (7.1%) mortality in the pandemic-period PC group due to cardiac arrest. The length of hospital stay between the groups based on the type of treatment was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LC is not recommended during the pandemic period; PC can be an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of AC.