Results of Transarterial Embolization for Treating Type 2 Endoleaks: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 endoleaks (T2Es) are the main cause of reintervention after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). The objective of this study is to quantify success rates of T2E treatment. METHODS: This study involves a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database containing data on all consecutive patients treated for a T2E between 2003 and 2017 in a single center. Technical success was defined as absence of endoleak in the final angiographic control after treatment. Clinical success was defined as absence of sac growth over 5 mm in the contrast-enhanced computed tomography performed a year thereafter. Statistics included Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS: A total of 528 elective EVARs were performed in the period. Thirty-six of these (6.8%) developed a T2E requiring reintervention, a median of 37.9 months after EVAR. Twenty-five percent of the treatments were performed more than 5 years after intervention. Twenty-eight of the 36 treatments were performed via transarterial embolization. For this technique, technical success was 71.4% and clinical success was 62.5%. A subsequent reintervention was required in 35.7% of patients. In this cohort, the rate of aneurysm rupture was 10.7% (n = 3/28), open surgical conversion was needed in 2 of 28 cases (7.1%), and rate of aneurysm-related death was 14.3% (n = 4/28) over follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of patients are at risk of adverse outcomes after T2E treatment. Strict imaging follow-up is still needed in this population.

[Survey of Online Outpatient Clinic Usage Experiences and Analysis of Factors Influencing Retreatment].

BACKGROUND: Because of the COVID-19 epidemic, people are mostly isolated at home and must seek medical advice over the internet. In addition, government authorities are currently investing greater efforts in developing internet hospitals. PURPOSE: The purpose of this essay was to assess how outpatients feel about online outpatient clinics and to analyze the factors that affect their satisfaction and willingness to return to these clinics. The results provide advice regarding how to more effectively encourage patients to use online outpatient clinics. METHODS: A self-developed questionnaire was used to survey 191 patients who had visited the online outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital in Sichuan Province from January to July 2019. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the collected data, and factors influencing satisfaction were identified. RESULTS: The majority of the surveyed patients were young or middle-aged (92.7%) and 42.9% held a college degree or higher. Nearly three-quarters (72.2%) expressed feeling satisfied or better with the online outpatient clinic, with 31.4% of these expressing feeling very satisfied. Nearly all (91.1%) expressed the opinion that the online outpatient clinic had improved their awareness of health self-management . Furthermore, 176 (92.1%) were willing to use the online outpatient clinic again. The results of univariate analysis showed that the main factors negatively influencing re-use of the online outpatient clinic were: failure to solve the problem in a timely manner (χ2 = 8.603, p = .045), the complicated process of online registration (χ2 = 8.322, p = .016), the failure of the online physical examination (χ2 = 8.958, p = .015), and unreliable quality (χ2 = 15.373, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The participants surveyed in this study reported a lower satisfaction for their online outpatient clinic experience than reported in similar surveys of traditional outpatient services. However, many reported that their health-related self-management awareness had improved after use, indicating that they feel better about the online outpatient clinic. The factors that affected willingness to reuse to the online outpatient clinic related mainly to imperfections related to the clinic and its inability to adequately meet patient needs. Online outpatient clinics should simplify the process of registration, improve functions, and increase service functions such as online examination appointments and follow-up visits to improve patient satisfaction.

Endotracheal Tube Obstruction Among Patients Mechanically Ventilated for ARDS Due to COVID-19: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS on prolonged mechanical ventilation are at risk for developing endotracheal tube (ETT) obstruction that has not been previously described in patients with ARDS due to other causes. The purpose of this report is to describe a case series of patients with COVID-19 and ARDS in which ETT occlusion resulted in significant clinical consequences and to define the pathology of the obstructing material. METHODS: Incidents of ETT occlusion during mechanical ventilation of COVID-19 patients were reported by clinicians and retrospective chart review was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed comparing event rates between COVID-19 and non-COVID 19 patients on mechanical ventilation over the predefined period. Specimens were collected and submitted for pathological examination. FINDINGS: Eleven COVID-19 patients experienced endotracheal tube occlusion over a period of 2 months. Average age was 69 (14.3, range 33-85) years. Mean APACHE III score was 73.6 (17.3). All patients had AKI and cytokine storm. Nine exhibited biomarkers for hypercoagulability. Average days on mechanical ventilation before intervention for ETT occlusion was 14 (5.18) days (range of 9 to 23 days). Five patients were discharged from the ICU, and 4 expired. Average documented airway resistance on admission was 14.2 (3.0) cm H2O/L/sec. Airway resistance before tube exchange was 28.1 (8.0) cm H2O /L/sec. No similar events of endotracheal tube occlusion were identified in non-COVID patients on mechanical ventilation during the same time period. Microscopically, the material consisted of mucin admixed with necrotic cell debris, variable numbers of degenerated inflammatory cells, oral contaminants and red blood cells. INTERPRETATION: Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS on prolonged mechanical ventilation are at risk for developing ETT obstruction due to deposition of a thick, tenacious material within the tube that consists primarily of mucin and cellular debris. Clinicians should be aware of this dangerous but treatable complication.

Extended intervals for wet AMD patients with high retreatment needs: informing the risk during COVID-19, data from real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Some clinicians may be forced to temporarily extend treatment intervals in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) eyes with frequent retreatments to reduce the number of visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. To provide an indication of what these outcomes may be, we studied eyes with active lesions with unplanned treatment interval extensions before the pandemic occurred. METHODS: We compared eyes with active disease despite ≤6 weekly injections whose next injection was extended to ≥7 weeks and those whose intervals were not extended. We identified 1559 (16%) of 9602 eyes from the Fight Retinal Blindness! (FRB!) registry (2013 and 2018) that fit this criteria. Eyes were further stratified into four groups by the mean interval over the following 6 months: (1) ≤6 weeks (81%), (2) 7-9 weeks (9%), (3) 10-12 weeks (5%) and (4) >12 weeks (5%). RESULTS: There was a significant loss in VA in eyes extended to >12 weeks compared to the non-extended group (adjusted VA change, mean (95% CI): ≤6 weeks, 0.4 (-1.5 to 2.2), versus >12 weeks, -4.7 (-7.4 to -2.1), letters, p = 0.03 and a threefold increase in relative risk of losing ≥15 letters (absolute risk (14% versus 4%, p < 0.01)). CONCLUSION: Mean VA remained stable for 6 months in eyes requiring frequent treatment despite retreatment interval extension up to 10-12 weeks. There was a significant short-term risk to vision when retreatment interval was extended beyond 12 weeks, hence extensions to this level should be considered cautiously. These data may be useful for physicians who are considering reducing visits to mitigate the risk of COVID-19.

Clinical features and outcomes of discharged coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic but the follow-up data of discharged patients was barely described. AIM: To investigate clinical outcomes, distribution of quarantine locations and the infection status of the contacts of COVID-19 patients after discharge. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: Demographics, baseline characteristics of 131 COVID-19 patients discharged from 3 February 2020 to 21 February 2020 in Wuhan, China were collected and analyzed by reviewing the medical records retrospectively. Post-hospitalization data related to clinical outcomes, quarantine locations and close contact history were obtained by following up the patients every week up to 4 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-three (40.05%) patients on discharge had cough (29.01%), fatigue (7.63%), expectoration (6.11%), chest tightness (6.11%), dyspnea (3.82%), chest pain (3.05%) and palpitation (1.53%). These symptoms constantly declined in 4 weeks post-discharge. Transient fever recurred in 11 (8.4%) patients. Among the discharged patients, 78 (59.5%) underwent chest CT and 2 (1.53%) showed deterioration. A total of 94 (71.8%) patients received SARS-CoV-2 retest and 8 (6.10%) reported positive. Seven (2.29%) patients were readmitted because of fever or positive SARS-CoV-2 retest. After discharge, 121 (92.37%) and 4 (3.05%) patients were self-quarantined at home or community spots, respectively, after a close contact with 167 persons in total who were free of COVID-19 at the endpoint of study. CONCLUSION: The majority of COVID-19 patients after discharge were in the course of recovery. Readmission was required in rare cases due to suspected recurrence of COVID-19. Although no contacted infection observed, appropriate self-quarantine and regular re-examination are necessary, particularly for those who have recurred symptoms.