Digital Evaluation of the Changes in Eyelid and Ocular Surface Measurements and the Correlation of These Parameters with Visual Field Parameters After Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the change in eyelid and ocular surface parameters that were measured using a digital measurement program, the change in the visual field (VF), and the correlation between ocular surface area (OSA) and VF parameters in patients who underwent upper eyelid blepharoplasty for involutional dermatochalasis. Methods: Patients who underwent upper eyelid blepharoplasty for involutional dermatochalasis between August 2015 and August 2019 were included in the study. The difference between preoperative and postoperative 3rd month values of manually measured margin reflex distance 1 (MRD1), digitally measured eyelid and ocular surface parameters (MRD1, MRD 2 [MRD2], upper eyelid crease height [ECH], pretarsal show height [PTH], eyebrow line-height [EBH] and OSA), and VF parameters were evaluated. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative values of manually and digitally measured MRD1 and also preoperative and postoperative values of OSA and VF parameters were analyzed. Results: Thirty-six eyes from 36 patients were included in this study and the mean age of patients was 57.93±7.64 years. There were statistically significant changes between preoperative and postoperative values in means of the manually measured MRD1 and the digitally measured MRD1, PTH, OSA, and ECH (p<0.001). However, the postoperative changes in the mean MRD2 and EBH were not statistically significant (p=0.664 and p=0.983). There were moderate positive correlations between pre- and post-operative OSA values and pre- and postoperative values of manual and digital MRD1. A statistically significant agreement was observed between the change in OSA and the change in all VF parameters (Bland-Altman analysis test). Conclusion: Digital measurements can be used to evaluate the changes in eyelid and ocular surface parameters in patients who underwent upper eyelid blepharoplasty surgery. OSA provides fast results in accordance with linear measurements and is compatible with the change in the VF.

T-MACS score vs HEART score identification of major adverse cardiac events in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, and its prevalence is rising. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the HEART and T-MACS scores for predicting major cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain. METHOD: This study was single center and prospectively conducted. The demographic information, T-MACS and HEART scores of the participants were recorded and calculated. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), mortality, and the need for coronary revascularization were considered as major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS (IBM Statistics, New York) version 24, and significance was determined at the p < 0.05 level. RESULTS: The 514 patients included in our study had a mean age of 52.01 ± 19.10 years, with 55.3% were female and 44.7% was male. A total of 78(%15.1) cases were diagnosed with AMI. Fifty patients (%9.7) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, 12 (%2.3) patients underwent coronary artery by-pass graft, and 8 (%1.5) patients died within a one-month period. The sensitivity and negative predictive values of the T-MACS score for the very low risk classification were 93.90% (86.3%-98.0%) and 97.7% (94.7%-99.0%), respectively, and the sensitivity and negative predictive values of the HEART score for the low risk classification were 89.59% (77.3%-93.1%) and 96.6% (94.2%-98.0%), respectively. The specificity and positive predictive values for the high risk classification were 99.77% (98.7%-100%) and 97.2% (82.9%-99.6%), respectively for the T-MACS score and 95.14% (92.7%-97%) and 63.2% (51.4%-73.5%), respectively for the HEART score. CONCLUSION: The T-MACS score was shown to be more accurate than the HEART score in predicting low risk (very low risk for the T-MACS score), high risk, and anticipated one-month risk for MACE in patients coming to the emergency department with chest pain.

Comparison of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Patients Admitted to Intensive Care for COVID-19 Versus Other Reasons: A Single-Centered Study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 patients in intensive care usually need invasive mechanical ventilation due to advanced respiratory failure. Deep lym- phopenia, immunosuppressive agents, long-term mechanical ventilation, and sedation may lead to ventilator-associated pneumonia; an impor- tant cause of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates the frequency, clinical features, causative pathogens, and outcomes of ventilator-asso ciated pneumonia in COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The files of patients hospitalized in our hospital's intensive care clinic between March 25, 2020, and January 15, 2021, in the first 2 peaks due to COVID-19 and other reasons were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: We found ventilator-associated pneumonia rate in COVID-19 patients as 52.2%, which was statistically significantly higher than in non-COVID patients (33.5%). Purulent sputum, leukocyte, and procalcitonin levels were found to be significantly higher in both groups develop- ing ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, fever levels were found to be significantly normal in both groups; 97.1% and 87%, respectively. High fever was observed in only 2.9% of COVID-19 patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia. We determined a mortality rate of 17 (100%) in the diabetes patients in the COVID-19 group, which was statistically significantly higher than in non-COVID-19 patients at 9 (64.3%). The mortality rate (86.1%) in those with COVID-19 was statistically significantly higher than in those without COVID-19 (64.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Ventilator-associated pneumonia is more common in COVID-19 patients treated with mechanical ventilation than in non- COVID patients. The predictive value of fever in the diagnosis is very low, and agent production together with increased purulent sputum will be more valuable in terms of diagnosis.

[Antibody Sustainability in SARS-CoV-2 Healthcare Professionals' Patient Cohort]. / Saglik Çalisanlari SARS-CoV-2 Hasta Kohordunda Antikor Sürdürülebilirligi.

In this study, it was aimed to evaluate one-year follow-up of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) specific antibodies formed against the virus binding site, in a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) positive case cohort (n= 413) between the period March 2020 to December 2020 in Manisa Celal Bayar University Hospital, until July 2021. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were determined by the chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLIA) method. Values of 1.0 and above were considered positive. Chi-square tests and Joinpoint regression analysis (version 4.7.0) were used in the statistical analyses. The mean age of the participants was 34.9 ± 9.3 and 60.2% of them were women. Between 21-30 days after the diagnosis of COVID-19, total antibody level was above the threshold value in 72.2% (n= 126) of the participants, while this rate increased to 79.1% (n= 240) in 31-60 day interval. In the following period, this rate decreased to 38.8% (n= 108) in days 211st to 240th. Antibody response could not be detected in 76 (20.7%) of 367 employees who have initially been followed up. The percentage of total antibody positivity prevalence ranged from 98.9% to 96.1% in the 31-210th day after diagnosis, in the follow-up of 291 employees whose total antibody positivity was detected after diagnosis. According to the results of the Joinpoint regression analysis, after the diagnosis of COVID-19, the curve showing the percentage of antibody positivity was broken at two points: The first breaking point was observed in 181-210th days (6-7 months) (p= 0.069), and the second breaking point was in 271-300th days (9-10 months) (p< 0.001). As a result, the highest antibody positivity rates were detected after the 30th day of the disease onset and antibody positivity was maintained in the first seven months after diagnosis; the antibody positivity rate decreased to 25% at the end of the first year.

Characteristics and outcomes of 974 COVID-19 patients in intensive care units in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: In our previous report on Turkish COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care, the 24 patients in a single ICU were elderly and mortality was high. We extended our analysis to include patients admitted to ten ICUs. OBJECTIVES: Report the demographics, clinical features, imaging findings, comorbidities, and outcomes in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Intensive care unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study includes patients with clinical and radiological confirmed or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to ten ICUs between 15 March and 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes, therapies, and death during hospitalization SAMPLE SIZE: 974, including 571 males (58%). RESULTS: The median age (range) was 72 (21-101) years for patients who died (n=632, 64.9%) and 70 (16-99) years for patients who lived (n=432, 35.2%) (P<.001). APACHE scores, and SOFA scores were higher in patients who died than in those who survived (P<.001, both comparisons). Respiratory failure was the most common cause of hospitalization (82.5%), and respiratory failure on admission was associated with death (P=.013). Most (n=719, 73.8%) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of COVID-19 require respiratory support. LIMITATIONS: Although the Turkish Ministry of Health made recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, patient management may not have been identical in all ten units. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.