Airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records of patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

PURPOSE: Although unexpected airway difficulties are reported in patients with mucormycosis, the literature on airway management in patients with mucormycosis associated with Coronavirus disease is sparse. METHODS: In this retrospective case record review of 57 patients who underwent surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease, we aimed to evaluate the demographics, airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records. RESULTS: Forty-one (71.9%) patients had a diagnosis of sino-nasal mucormycosis, fourteen (24.6%) patients had a diagnosis of rhino-orbital mucormycosis, and 2 (3.5%) patients had a diagnosis of palatal mucormycosis. A total of 44 (77.2%) patients had co-morbidities. The most common co-morbidities were diabetes mellitus in 42 (73.6%) patients, followed by hypertension in 21 (36.8%) patients, and acute kidney injury in 14 (28.1%) patients. We used the intubation difficulty scale score to assess intubating conditions. Intubation was easy to slightly difficult in 53 (92.9%) patients. In our study, mortality occurred in 7 (12.3%) patients. The median (range) mortality time was 60 (27-74) days. The median (range) time to hospital discharge was 53.5 (10-85) days. The median [interquartile range] age of discharged versus expired patients was 47.5 [41,57.5] versus 64 [47,70] years (P = 0.04), and median (interquartile range) D-dimer levels in discharged versus expired patients was 364 [213, 638] versus 2448 [408,3301] ng/mL (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with the coronavirus disease, airway management was easy to slightly difficult in most patients. Perioperative complications can be minimized by taking timely and precautionary measures.

Detection of three pandemic causing coronaviruses from non-respiratory samples: systematic review and meta-analysis.

SARS-CoV-2 has posed an unprecedented challenge to the world. Pandemics have been caused previously by viruses of this family like Middle East Respiratory Corona Virus (MERS CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus (SARS CoV). Although these viruses are primarily respiratory viruses, but they have been isolated from non-respiratory samples as well. Presently, the detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA from different clinical specimens using Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerized Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) after onset of symptoms is not yet well established. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to establish the profile of detecting SARS-CoV-2, MERS CoV, SARS CoV from different types of clinical specimens other than the respiratory using a standard diagnostic test (qRT-PCR). A total of 3429 non-respiratory specimens were recorded: SARS CoV (total sample-802), MERS CoV (total sample-155), SARS CoV-2 (total sample-2347). Out of all the samples studied high positive rate was seen for saliva with 96.7% (14/14; 95% CI 87.6-100.0%) for SARS CoV and 57.5% (58/250; 95% CI - 1.2 to 116.2%) for SARS CoV-2, while low detection rate in urine samples for SARS CoV-2 with 2.2% (8/318; 95% CI 0.6-3.7%) and 9.6% (12/61; 95% CI - 0.9 to 20.1%) for SARS CoV but there was relatively higher positivity in urine samples for MERS CoV with detection rate of 32.4% (2/38; 95% CI - 37.3 to 102.1%). In Stool sample positivity was 54.9% (396/779; 95% CI 41.0-68.8%), 45.2% (180/430; 95% CI 28.1-62.3%) and 34.7% (4/38; 95% CI - 29.5 to 98.9%) for SARS CoV-2, MERS CoV, and SARS CoV, respectively. In blood sample the positivity was 33.3% (7/21; 95% CI 13.2-53.5%), 23.7% (42/277; 95% CI 10.5-36.9%) and 2.5% (2/81; 95% CI 0.00-5.8%) for MERS CoV, SARS CoV-2 and SARS CoV respectively. SARS-CoV-2 along with previous two pandemic causing viruses from this family, were highly detected stool and saliva. A low positive rate was recorded in blood samples. Viruses were also detected in fluids along with unusual samples like semen and vaginal secretions thus highlighting unique pathogenic potential of SARS-CoV-2.

Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial.

INTRODUCTION: Intubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. METHODOLOGY: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over. RESULTS: The mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s, P = (p-0.063)]. POGO score [mean (S. D.)] was better with CMAC [81.33 (16.24) vs 60.33 (14.73), p-0.00. The majority of the users preferred C-MAC VL for intubation (93.33%). The incidence of failed intubation and multiple attempts at intubating were similar with the two scopes. CONCLUSION: The time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin.