ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the level of compliance with treatment and achieving metabolic goals in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients who are remotely monitored with mobile health (mHealth) technologies during the pandemic. METHODS: A total number of 86 patients were included in the study. Data from two periods were used: from 1 month before the date when the first COVID-19 case in Turkiye was reported on March 11, 2020 (Febraury 10, 2020-March 31, 2020) and from the pandemic was severe between April 01, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Participants' mean blood glucose, step count, blood pressure, body weight, and diet compliance levels were evaluated. RESULTS: When the blood sugar, blood pressure, and weight averages of the patients were compared between the pre-pandemic period and the pandemic months separately, no significant difference was observed. However, it was observed that the number of steps decreased significantly compared to the period before the pandemic (p<0.05). It was determined that 88% of the participants were able to access health services without applying to the hospital. CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed that patients with T2DM who were followed up with mHealth technologies provided the necessary metabolic control and compliance with the treatment during the pandemic.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Evaluation of subtle ocular involvement and clinically significant conjunctivitis symptoms in a group of patients with COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. METHOD: Overall, 1083 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were recruited as subjects. Patients were divided into inpatients (group 1, n = 371) and outpatients (group 2, n = 712). Demographical and general medical data included age, sex, and comorbidities. Patients whose diagnosis was confirmed by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were called by phone, and their chronic ocular disease, previous ocular surgery, ocular medication, contact lens wear and ocular irritation symptoms were queried during the active disease period. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 44.2 ± 16.5 (19-97) years; 635 (58.6%) were male, and 448 (41.4%) were female. Comorbidity, chronic ocular disease, ophthalmic medication and previous ocular surgery rates were significantly higher in group 1 (p < 0.05), while contact lens wear was not significantly different between groups. The main complaints received from patients were sore eye or burning sensation, foreign body sensation, itching and red eye and were significantly higher in group 1. Clinically significant conjunctivitis symptoms, such as red eye, ocular discharge and eyelid edema, were observed in 28 patients (2.6%), with 14 (3.8%) patients in group 1 and 14 (2%) patients in group 2. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant conjunctivitis symptoms were detected in 28 subjects in the inpatient and outpatient groups. As systemic findings of COVID-19 intensify.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Eye Diseases/virology , Eye/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Inpatients , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the sedative effects of midazolam and dexmedetomidine and their effects on hemodynamics and the cardiovascular system under epidural anesthesia. METHODS: This study included 50 patients. Approval of the ethics committee and written consent from patients were obtained. The patients were separated into two groups to receive dexmedetomidine (D group) or midazolam (M group). Perifix no. 18 was placed in the epidural space from the L(3-4) interspace. After lidocaine 60 mg/3 ml was applied, isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% was given as 1 ml per segment. After block reached the T10 level, midazolam was given to the M group as a bolus of 0.015 mg kg(-1) in 10 minutes until beginning the operation, followed by continuous infusion as 0.1-0.2 mg kg(-1)h(-1) dosage. Dexmedetomidine 1 mcq kg(-1) was given to the D group as a bolus dosage in 10 minutes until beginning the operation, followed by continuous infusion as 0.4-0.7 mcq kg(-1) h(-1) dosage. Systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), SpO(2), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS), bispectral index (BIS), and respiratory rate (RR) were recorded. Sedative infusion was stopped when skin suture was closed. Adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: In group D, MAP was significantly higher and HR was significantly lower than in group M (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: We concluded that both drugs provided good sedation with no respiratory depression, stable hemodynamics and alertness with good cooperation. However, we consider midazolam as the first option due to its cost benefit.
