RESUMO
Objective:To investigate the role of epidemiological history in the screening of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in fever clinic, to improve the efficiency in fever clinic and reduce the incidence of cross infection.Methods:This is a retrospective study. Patients who were admitted to the Fever Clinic in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 23th, 2020 to February 11th, 2020 were included in the study. According to epidemiological history, the patients were divided into the epidemiological history group (experimental group) and no epidemiological history group (control group). The two groups of patients were admitted and treated separately. The clinical data, NEWS score, etiology results, viral pneumonia showed on CT, time of visit, COVID-19 patient ratio, and admission composition ratio were compared between the two groups. The measurement data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), and the numeration data were expressed as ratio or constituent ratio. The measurement data of normal distribution between the two groups were compared by independent sample t test. The measurement data of skewed distribution were expressed by the median (interquartile range), and the comparison between the two groups was tested by non-parameter. The differences between enumeration data were assessed by chi-square test. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 2423 patients were included, including 927 patients in the experimental group and 1296 patients in the control group. There were no significant differences in gender, NEWS score and clinical symptoms between the two groups ( P> 0.05). The age (35.00 ± 12.80 vs 38.13 ± 15.57 years) , the proportion of fever patients (28.80% vs 32.75%) and waiting time (31.72 vs 58.08 min) of the experimental group were lower than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The CT examination ratio (37.54% vs 20.39%), viral pneumonia ratio shown on CT (9.77% vs 2.95%), ratio of examined COVID-19 nucleic acid test (85.44% vs 56.75%), and the admission ratio (16.72% vs 9.63%) of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in the positive rates of influenza virus and rhinovirus between the two groups ( P> 0.05). Conclusion:It is necessary to adjust the management mode of fever clinic during the corona virus disease 2019, and to manage the patients according to the epidemiological history which can improve the screening efficiency and reduce the risk of cross infection.
RESUMO
Objective@#To investigate the role of epidemiological history in the screening of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in fever clinic, to improve the efficiency in fever clinic and reduce the incidence of cross infection.@*Methods@#This is a retrospective study. Patients who were admitted to the fever clinic in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 23th, 2020 to February 11th, 2020 included the study. According to epidemiological history, the patients were divided into epidemiological history group (the experimental group) and no epidemiological history group (the control group). The two groups of patients were admitted and treated separately. The clinical data, NEWS score, etiology results, viral pneumonia showed on CT, time of visit, COVID-19 patient ratio, and admission composition ratio were compared between the two groups. The measurement data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), and the numeration data were expressed as ratio or constituent ratio. The measurement data of normal distribution between the two groups were compared by independent sample t test. The measurement data of skewed distribution are expressed by the median (interquartile range), and the comparison between the two groups is tested by non-parameter. The differences between enumeration data were assessed by chi-square test. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.@*Results@#A total of 2423 patients were included, including 927 patients in the experimental group and 1296 patients in the control group. There were no significant differences in gender, NEWS score and clinical symptoms between the two groups (P> 0.05). The age (35.00 ± 12.80 vs 38.13 ± 15.57 years) , the proportion of fever patients (28.80% vs 32.75%) and waiting time (31.72 vs 58.08 min) of the experimental group were lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The CT examination ratio (37.54% vs 20.39%), viral pneumonia ratio showed on CT (9.77% vs 2.95%), ratio of examined COVID-19 nucleic acid test (85.44% vs 56.75%), and the admission ratio (16.72% vs 9.63%) of the experimental group were higher than the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05); There was no significant difference in the positive rates of influenza virus and rhinovirus between the two groups (P> 0.05).@*Conclusion@#It is necessary to adjust the management mode of fever clinic during the Corona Virus Disease 2019, and to manage the patients according to the epidemiological history which can improve the screening efficiency and reduce the risk of cross infection.
RESUMO
Objective@#To explore the occurrence of oxidative stress and antioxidases expression in diaphragm of severely burned rats, so that the mechanism of respiratory muscle atrophy and dysfunction post-burn injury will be further clarified.@*Methods@#Eighty male Wistar rats (aged 7 to 8 weeks) were divided into sham injury group and burn injury group according to the random number table, with 40 rats in each group. Rats in burn injury group were inflicted with 50% total body surface area full-thickness scald (hereinafter referred to as burn) on the back and abdomen by immersing into 80 ℃ water for 15 s and 8 s respectively. Immediately after injury, 40 mL/kg normal saline was injected through abdomen for resuscitation, and the wounds were treated with iodine. Except for immersing into 37 ℃ warm water and no resuscitation, the other treatments of rats in sham injury group were the same as those of burn injury group. Whole diaphragms of 8 rats per time point per group were collected after anesthesia at post injury hour (PIH) 2 and on post injury day (PID) 1, 3, 7, and 14, and muscle mass was determined. The protein carbonyl content was determined by microplate reader. The protein expressions of catalase, superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2), and glutathione peroxidase 1 were determined by Western blotting. Data were processed with analysis of variance of factorial design, t test, and Bonferroni correction.@*Results@#(1) There were no statistically significant differences in the diaphragm mass of rats between the 2 groups at PIH 2 and on PID 1 (t=0.453, 0.755, P>0.05). The diaphragm mass of rats in burn injury group started to decrease from PID 3, which was significantly lower than that of sham injury group (t=3.321, P<0.01). The diaphragm mass of rats in burn injury group started to increase from PID 7 to PID 14, which was significantly lower than that of sham injury group (t=4.622, 4.380, P<0.01). (2) Protein carbonyl content in diaphragm of rats in burn injury group at PIH 2, and on PID 1, 3, 7, and 14 [(2.7±0.3), (2.5±0.5), (2.4±0.4), (2.5±0.4), (3.2±0.6) pg/mL] was significantly higher than that of sham injury group respectively [(1.2±0.4), (1.6±0.3), (1.5±0.7), (1.7±0.3), (1.8±0.4) pg/mL, t=5.994, 3.263, 3.666, 3.158, 5.763, P<0.05 or P<0.01]. (3) Protein expressions of catalase in diaphragm of rats in burn injury group on PID 1 and 3 were close to those of sham injury group (t=0.339, 0.324, P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in protein expressions of SOD2 in diaphragm of rats between the 2 groups at PIH 2 and on PID 1, 3, 7, and 14 (t=1.446, 1.385, 0.757, 1.561, 0.531, P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in protein expressions of glutathione peroxidase 1 in diaphragm of rats in the 2 groups at PIH 2 and on PID 1, 3, and 7 (t=0.200, 0.729, 0.385, 1.559, P>0.05).@*Conclusions@#Continuous oxidative stress and relatively insufficient expression of antioxidases in diaphragm induced by burn injury could be a contributor to diaphragm atrophy.
