Characteristics, Outcomes, and Associations of Venous Thromboembolism in Diabetic Patients Infected With COVID-19 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Background The associations and risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients remain ambiguous in the literature, with some conflicting findings, especially in Saudi Arabia. In this study, we aim to elaborate on these data by examining regional patient populations and exploring the incidence, lab findings, and outcomes of VTE among hospitalized COVID-19 patients known to have diabetes mellitus (DM). Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh. The BestCare system was used to collect patients' data between September 2020 and February 2022. JMP15 was used for data analysis. Frequencies and percentages were used for categorical data, and median and interquartile ranges were used for quantitative data. The chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests were used to assess the difference between categorical and quantitative variables, respectively. Nominal logistical regression was used to assess diabetes as a risk factor for developing VTE among COVID-19 patients. Results Data from 153 admitted patients were collected after they satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 39 (25.49%) developed VTE. The demographic data included age group, gender, and DM status presented as frequencies and percentages. Through bivariate analysis, patients with longer hospital stays had at least one episode of VTE (p = 0.0072). Using nominal logistic regression analysis, diabetes as a risk factor (odds ratio = 4.11, confidence interval = 0.955-5.05, p = 0.0287) was significantly associated with the development of VTE in COVID-19 patients. Conclusions Based on our study, diabetes proved significant when evaluating the possible factors regarding VTE development in COVID-19 patients. In addition, the length of stay also played a critical role in the severity of VTE in COVID-19 patients. Similar studies should be conducted on a national scale in Saudi Arabia to accomplish two goals: first, to gain further understanding of the impact of the variables investigated in our population, and second, to publish data that are more generalizable to the larger population of Saudi Arabia.

Awareness of Radiation Protection and Common Radiation Dose Levels Among Healthcare Workers.

Introduction: Access to ionizing radiation has become widely available for diagnosis and treatment. The increased use of ionizing radiation has been associated with radiation exposure hazards for patients and radiation workers. Raising the level of radiation protection awareness is important to maintain the safety of healthcare settings. Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed to 755 healthcare workers and students at King Abdulaziz Medical City and King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consisted of 14 multiple-choice questions divided into two sections (questions related to radiation protection and common radiologic examination doses). Results: In total, 443 participants completed the questionnaire, including 142 (32%) medical students, 107 (24%) radiology technologists, 105 (24%) radiography students, and 89 (20%) physicians. Of the participants, 245 (55%) were men. A total of 74 (84%) physicians and 51 (47%) radiology technologists had more than 5 years of experience. Eleven (12%) physicians and 44 (41%) radiology technologists had 1-4 years of experience, whereas the rest had less than 1 year of experience. Only 16% of participants attended training courses on a regular basis. However, 15% of the participants thought that they had excellent knowledge of radiation protection, whereas 18% admitted that they did not have sufficient knowledge. Sixty-two percent of the questions related to radiation protection awareness were answered correctly. Forty-five percent of the participants correctly answered questions related to doses from common radiologic examinations. Only 23% and 16% of participants were aware of the noncontrast chest CT and lumbar x-ray doses, respectively. Moreover, 35% and 24% of participants did not know that pelvic MRI and abdominal ultrasound do not contribute any radiation dose, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed a knowledge gap regarding radiation protection and dose levels; therefore, periodic refresher courses are recommended for healthcare workers in order to increase the level of awareness.

Radiation metrics for vascular and interventional radiology procedures in a tertiary care institution: A retrospective cohort study over 5-years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the radiation metrics from frequently carried out vascular and interventional radiology (VIR) procedures at a tertiary care institution and compare them to international diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). METHODS: A retrospective study of the radiation metrics of VIR-procedures carried out from January 2015 to December 2019. The collected data included age, gender, height and weight, reference point air kerma (mGy), dose area product (DAP; Gy.cm2), and fluoroscopy time (min.) The body mass index (BMI) and peak skin dose were calculated. The study cohort included 8942 adult patients (54.4% male, 45.6% female) with a mean age of 56.96 years and mean BMI of 26.86. RESULTS: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation recorded the highest mean fluoroscopy time of 69.41 min., followed by central venous recanalization 39.67min. TIPS creation had the highest mean DAP (1161.16 Gy.cm2), followed by trans arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) (500.63Gy.cm2). TIPS creation was associated with the highest peak skin dose (2766.81mGy), followed by TACE (1588.29mGy). Compared to other studies, TIPS creation and TACE are associated with significantly higher DAP. CONCLUSION: Majority of VIR-procedures demonstrate no significant institutional variations in dosimetry compared to other studies. Using these studied values as reference levels may help identifying procedures that need quality control to minimize unnecessary exposures.

Management of Patient Flow in Vascular and Interventional Radiology During MERS-CoV Outbreak.

In 2015, an outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus occurred in Saudi Arabia and necessitated special measures to be implemented to control the spread of the virus. In this article, we will discuss how the outbreak was managed in the vascular and interventional radiology (VIR) suite in a large tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. Various measures were taken to reduce the risk of transmission of infection. Unit-level education played an important role in the care of patients. A hospital-wide educational program was implemented to ensure zero transmission of infection. Special attention was made to monitor staff who acquired the virus. VIR suite was able to handle the situation and control the outbreak.

Clinical manifestations that predict abnormal brain computed tomography (CT) in children with minor head injury.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) used in pediatric pediatrics brain injury (TBI) to ascertain neurological manifestations. Nevertheless, this practice is associated with adverse effects. Reports in the literature suggest incidents of morbidity and mortality in children due to exposure to radiation. Hence, it is found imperative to search for a reliable alternative. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to find a reliable clinical alternative to detect an intracranial injury without resorting to the CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in patients (1-14 years) with blunt head injury and having a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13-15 who had CT performed on them. Using statistical analysis, the correlation between clinical examination and positive CT manifestation is analyzed for different age-groups and various mechanisms of injury. RESULTS: No statistically significant association between parameteres such as Loss of Consciousness, 'fall' as mechanism of injury, motor vehicle accidents (MVA), more than two discrete episodes of vomiting and the CT finding of intracranial injury could be noted. Analyzed data have led to believe that GCS of 13 at presentation is the only important clinical predictor of intracranial injury. CONCLUSION: Retrospective data, small sample size and limited number of factors for assessing clinical manifestation might present constraints on the predictive rule that was derived from this review. Such limitations notwithstanding, the decision to determine which patients should undergo neuroimaging is encouraged to be based on clinical judgments. Further analysis with higher sample sizes may be required to authenticate and validate findings.