ABSTRACT
Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) is an extremely rare condition. There are no other cases in the literature where tamsulosin has been reported to prolong POS treatment. A 67-year-old male patient was hospitalized due to COVID-19. He was followed up in the ward after being in the intensive care unit for ten days. There was a significant decrease in saturation (SaO2) when sitting and standing compared to lying. He was diagnosed with POS. However, there was no significant improvement in POS with exercises. After stopping the tamsulosin he was using, there was a dramatic improvement. He was discharged on the 72nd day of his hospitalization. Due to COVID-19, POS is more likely to appear than before. It is a condition that clinicians should recognize. The pathophysiology of POS has not been fully elucidated. The case we present suggests that alpha-blockers may also be related to pathophysiology.©Copyright 2020 by Emergency Physicians Association of Turkey -
ABSTRACT
Introduction: It is a common observation patients with large prostatic have smaller visible length of the catheter. Study questions: Does extraurethral catheter length (EUCL) have correlation with ultrasound prostate measurements? Can EUCL and clinical parameters predict need for prostate surgery?. Adult men on catheter for retention due to BPH were included. The EUCL was measured from the external urethral meatus to the end of the catheter. Detailed clinical and Ultrasound measurements like intravesical prostate protrusion (IPP), transverse prostate width (TPW), axial prostate length (APL), sagittal prostate maximum length (SPL), prostate weight (PW) were performed. Retention while on alpha blockers and failed voiding trial with alpha blockers were the indications for surgery. Need for surgery was classified as pass/fail. Machine learning decision tree analysis in 80/20 fashion was done using python and scikit. Ethics committee approval taken. Result(s): 110 patients were recruited (Jul 18-Mar 20, recruitment stopped due to COVID related restrictions) EUCL had a negative relationship with IPP, TPW, APL, SPL, PW. Retention episode while on alpha blocker and EUCL smaller than 169 mm were the strongest predictors for need for surgery. Conclusion(s): As the prostate increased in size EUCL decreased. Retention while on alpha blocker and EUCL <169 mm predicted the need for surgery. EUCL may be used at primary healthcare setting especially in resource poor setting as surrogate marker for prostate size and need for surgery.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: In the COVIDStones study, we aimed to determine how management of ureteric stones changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Materials and Methods: The COVID Stones study was a multi-centre retrospective study of consecutive adults diagnosed with CT-proven ureteric stone disease at 19 UK sites. We compared a pre-pandemic period (23/3/19 to 22/6/19) to a period during the pandemic (the 3-month period after the first SARS-CoV-2 case at individual sites). Results: 3755 patients were included (pre-pandemic = 1963 patients;pandemic = 1792 patients). Patients during the pandemic had significantly lower hospital admission rates (pre-pandemic = 54.2% vs pandemic = 46.6%, p<0.001), shorter length of stay (mean = 4.0 vs. 3.2 days, p=0.01), and higher rates of use of alpha-blockers (16.1% vs. 23.3%, p<0.001). In the cohort of patients who received interventional management (n=790 [44.1%] vs. n=686 [34.9%]), rates of ESWL (22.8% vs. 33.9%, p<0.001) were significantly higher;rates of ureteroscopy (56.7% vs. 47.7%, p<0.01) and stent insertion (67.9% vs. 54.5%, p>0.001) were lower;and there was no difference in rates of nephrostomy (p=0.76) during the pandemic. During the pandemic, there was no difference in success of primary treatment overall, including both non-interventional and interventional modalities (prepandemic= 73.8% vs. pandemic=76.2%, p=0.467), nor when stratified by treatment modality or stone size. Conclusions: Despite fewer invasive procedures performed during the pandemic, we demonstrated no difference in success of treatment, without an increase in adverse outcomes. This leads us to question whether the management of ureteric stones can be optimised further.
ABSTRACT
Background: Arterial hypertension has been described as one of the main risk factors for poor prognosis in Covid-19. In this context, the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in this infection has been studied, with studies showing how this enzyme acts as a functional receptor for SARS-CoV-2, favoring the penetration of the virus into the cell. The main objective of this work is to study the impact of chronic antihypertensive treatment in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with arterial hypertension, as well as clinical outcomes during hospitalization. Method: Single-center observational retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary level university hospital from 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. All adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of arterial hypertension on chronic treatment with an antihypertensive drug during the three months prior to contracting the infection were included. For the analysis, patients were divided into three groups according to the chronic antihypertensive treatment they were receiving: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) or other treatment, excluding those patients who during the three months prior to the start of the study had been on concomitant treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARB, as well as those on treatment with more than four antihypertensive drugs. Results: A total of 475 cases with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2 cases had hypertension as an associated comorbidity on antihypertensive treatment in the three months prior to admission. The mean age of this cohort of patients was 77.05 (SD 10.95) years, most of them male (56.8%) Regarding the prolonged length of stay variable, 127 patients (26.7%) were admitted for 14 days or more, with no statistically significant differences between the three groups. For patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (29 patients, 6.1%) no differences were observed between the three study groups either.Regarding the outcome variable, all-cause in-hospital mortality, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups (p = 0.836). Conclusions: Patients admitted with SARS-CoV2 respiratory infection with a diagnosis of hypertension and pre-admission treatment with an antihypertensive drug showed no statistically significant differences in mortality between those hypertensive patients who received renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor antihypertensive drugs and those who received other antihypertensive treatments.
ABSTRACT
Objective: Hypertension is one of the most important factors for cardiovascular disease. It has been repeatedly proposed as a prognostic factor of severe COVID- 19 and has been included in clinical risk scores to predict the occurrence of critical illness in ospitalised with COVID-19. Also, it has been postulated the relation between antihypertensive drugs and the severity of COVID-19. The aims of our study were to analyze whether hypertension and antihypertensive treatment represent an independent risk factor for death or intensive care unit admission in patients with SARS-COV2. Design and method: Observational, retrospective, single-center cohort study of all patients admitted to Hospital Virgen Macarena diagnosed with COVID-19 between the months of March and December 2020. A bivariate analysis was performed using Pearson's chi-square Results: 608 patients required admission for COVID-19. A total of 83.7% were hypertensive, specifically 75.9% were under antihypertensive treatment (35.7% with only 1 drug, 29.9% were taking two drugs, 9% with three drugs, and 1.3% with 4 drugs). 26.2% were treated with an ACEI, 24.8% with ARA-II, 16.8% with calcium-antagonists, 30.9% with diuretics, 21.2% with beta-blockers, 0, 5% with alpha-blockers). Hypertension did not show a statistically significant relationship with mortality (p = 0.34), increase in mortality and ICU admissions. Neither treatment with ACEI (p = 0.4), ARB-II (p = 0.45), calcium antagonists (p = 0.53), diuretics (p = 0.68), alpha blockers (p = 0.07) demonstrated relation with those items. Surprisingly, beta-blockers increased the mortality in patients with SARS-COV2 (p = 0.048). Probably this results can be explained as these drugs were indicated for rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation (p = 0.006). The number of antihypertensive drugs used also did not show a statistically significant relationship with an increase in mortality (p = 0.978). Conclusions: Hypertension is a highly prevalent pathology in patients ospitalised with COVID-19 infection. However, high blood pressure was not associated with a higher risk for mortality in patients with SARS-COV-2, neither the type or the number of antihypertensive drug used. Only beta-blockers alter outcomes in hypertensive patients with COVID-19, as they were associated with more deaths.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The management of antihypertensive drugs and especially ACEI/ARA2 during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was a matter of debate. The change in antihypertensive treatment during the pandemic and its repercussions have not been sufficiently studied. Methods: Observational and prospective study that analyzed consecutive patients admitted for respiratory infection and positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) between March 1 and April 30, 2020. During the period analyzed, 921 patients were registered, of whom 673 patients were discharged;among them 359 were patients with a diagnosis of arterial hypertension and pharmacological treatment. These patients were followed up in days, from the time of discharge to data analysis, with a mean of 352±70.4 days. Results: The mean age was 74.4±12.9 years, and 50.7% were male. A total of 28.7% were diabetic patients, 49% were dyslipidemic, 17.8% were smokers, and 19.8% were obese. Of the patients analyzed, 13.4% had a previous diagnosis of ischemic heart disease, a similar percentage, 13.1% had heart failure, and 13.6% had atrial fibrillation. The antihypertensive drugs analyzed were ACE inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), ARA-2 (angiotensin II receptor antagonists), calcium antagonists, thiazide diuretics, loop diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, beta-blockers and alpha-blockers. At discharge, 75.8% of the patients maintained their antihypertensive treatment, and the remaining 24.2% were modified. Prior to admission, 77.2% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARA-2;however, in 16.4% of the patients they were discontinued after admission. In contrast, treatment with calcium antagonists increased from 27.6% to 34.1% after hospitalization. In both cases there were statistically significant differences in the bivariate analysis in the McNemar test (p < 0.05 in both cases), with no differences in the other antihypertensive drugs analyzed. After follow-up, the combined event occurred in 28 patients, with the most frequent event being the development of HF;in contrast, only 0.8% presented ACS. Overall mortality was 8.9%. Picture 1 shows the events recorded according to the change in antihypertensive treatment and the maintenance or discontinuation of ACEI/ARA-2 in those patients who were already taking it on admission. Similarly, a survival analysis was performed in which no differences were observed in terms of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events between patients who maintained their antihypertensive treatment and those who modified it. Conclusions: In the population surviving SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection, maintaining or discontinuing treatment with ACEI/ARA-2 did not influence mortality or the appearance of major cardiovascular events after the first year of follow-up. (Table Presented).