ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, is a systemic disease that affects not only the respiratory system, but also other systems, including gastrointestinal. A great number of different drugs have been used on hospitalized patients for the management of COVID-19, and acute pancreatitis (AP) has been reported as a complication or side effect of these drugs. The development of drug-induced acute pancreatitis (DIAP) follows a complex of pathophysiological mechanisms, and particular risk factors play a key role. Diagnosis of DIAP depends on specific criteria, and based on these, a drug may be characterized as having a definite, probable or possible connection with AP. The aim of this review is to present the medications that are used for COVID-19 management and are associated with AP in hospitalized patients. The list of these drugs mainly includes corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antiviral agents, antibiotics, monoclonal antibodies, estrogens and anesthetic agents. Moreover, the prevention of the development of DIAP is vital, especially for critically ill patients who may receive multiple drugs. DIAP management is mainly non-invasive and the first step concerns the exception of the suspicious drug from patients therapy.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a disease that quickly spread into a pandemic. As such, management of the COVID-19 pandemic is deemed necessary, and it can be achieved by using reliable diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is a molecular detection test using the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction technique (rt-PCR), which is characterized by various disadvantages in contrast with the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests that produce results faster, have lower costs and do not require specialized personnel. Therefore, the usefulness of self-taken rapid antigen tests is indisputable in disease management, facilitating both the health system and the examinees. Our systematic review aims to access the diagnostic accuracy of the self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. All the studies included in this systematic review were found after searching the two databases, Scopus and PubΜed. All but original articles were excluded from this systematic review, while all the studies concerning self-taken rapid antigen tests with a nasal sample and using rt-PCR as a reference test were included. Meta-analysis results and plots were obtained using RevMan software and the MetaDTA website. RESULTS: All 22 studies included in this meta-analysis demonstrated a specificity of self-taken rapid antigen tests greater than 98%, which exceeds the minimum required yield for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, according to the WHO. Notwithstanding, the sensitivity varies (from 40% to 98.7%), which makes them in some cases unsuitable for the diagnosis of positive cases. In the majority of the studies, the minimum required performance set by the WHO was achieved, which is 80% compared with rt-PCR tests. The pooled sensitivity of self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests was calculated as 91.1% and the pooled specificity was 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, self-taken nasal rapid antigen tests have many advantages over rt-PCR tests, such as those related to the rapid reading of the results and their low cost. They also have considerable specificity and some self-taken rapid antigen test kits also have remarkable sensitivity. Consequently, self-taken rapid antigen tests have a wide range of utility but are not able to completely replace rt-PCR tests.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: The pandemic of SARS-CoV-19 has affected the overall spectrum of General Surgery, either in the case management part, or in the type of cases. The purpose of this review is to gather all the parameters affected and to compare these changes between the pandemic period and the corresponding time frame of the previous year. Materials and Methods: A review of literature in two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) was performed examining studies during the pre-pandemic (March to May 2019) and pandemic (March to May 2020) period about emergency surgeries. The differences in case presentation in emergency rooms, patient characteristics, length of hospitalization, type of surgery, complications and mortality rate were compared. Results: The comparison of the studies revealed significant results highlighting the differences between the two time periods for each parameter. There has been observed an overall decrease in the number of cases presented for emergency and urgent surgery. In terms of age, sex, and BMI, there were no significant variations amongst the patients. About the length of hospitalization, the patients hospitalized longer during the pandemic period. In terms of pathologies, the most common types of surgery were appendectomy, gastrointestinal, and colorectal resection. Mortality did not differ between the two study periods. Conclusions: COVID-19 affected a large part of Emergency General Surgery mainly concerns the type of operations performed. The hospitalization of patients, the complications that may have arisen and the recognition of emergencies were the most important issues faced by health care officials in hospitals during the period of COVID-19; however, there were parameters like mortality and patients' characteristics that did not appear to differ with pre-pandemic era.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Appendectomy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on all aspects of health care. Few up-to-date studies have actually assessed the impact of COVID-19 on emergency surgeries. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the impact of the pandemic relating to the emergency surgery performed, as well as morbidity and mortality rates during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) and during the control period. In this period, the first propaedeutic surgery department and the third surgery department of the University General Hospital of Thessaloniki "AHEPA" in Greece provided continuous emergency general surgery services. Material and Methods: The study is in a retrospective cohort and included patients who were admitted to the Emergency Department and underwent emergency general surgery during the control period (n = 456), March 2019-February 2020 and during the first year of the pandemic (n = 223), March 2020-February 2021. Gender, age, type of surgical operation (morbidity), ICU need, the patient's outcome, and days of hospitalization were compared. Results: A total of 679 emergency surgeries were included. Statistically significant differences emerged between the two time periods in the total number of emergency surgeries performed (p < 0.001). The most common type of surgery in the control period was associated with soft tissue infection while, during the pandemic period, the most common type of surgery was associated with the hepatobiliary system. In addition, the mortality rates nearly doubled during the pandemic period (2.2% vs. 4%). Finally, the mean age of our sample was 50.6 ± 17.5 and the majority of the participants in both time periods were males. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic changed significantly the total number of emergency general surgeries performed. Mortality rates doubled and morbidity rates were affected between the control and pandemic periods. Finally, age, gender, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit hospitalization, and laparoscopy use in patients undergoing emergency surgery during the pandemic were stable.