Search

Abstract Objectives To determine the safety of urological admissions and procedures during the height of the COVID‐19 pandemic using “hot” and “cold” sites. The secondary objective is to determine risk factors of contracting COVID‐19 within our cohort. Patients and methods A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 2020 at a high‐volume tertiary urology department in London, United Kingdom. Elective surgery was carried out at a “cold” site requiring a negative COVID‐19 swab 72‐hours prior to admission and patients were required to self‐isolate for 14‐days preoperatively, while all acute admissions were admitted to the “hot” site. Complications related to COVID‐19 were presented as percentages. Risk factors for developing COVID‐19 infection were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 611 patients, 451 (73.8%) male and 160 (26.2%) female, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 44‐70) were admitted under the urology team; 101 (16.5%) on the “cold” site and 510 (83.5%) on the “hot” site. Procedures were performed in 495 patients of which eight (1.6%) contracted COVID‐19 postoperatively with one (0.2%) postoperative mortality due to COVID‐19. Overall, COVID‐19 was detected in 20 (3.3%) patients with two (0.3%) deaths. Length of stay was associated with contracting COVID‐19 in our cohort (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13‐1.39). Conclusions Continuation of urological procedures using “hot” and “cold” sites throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic was safe practice, although the risk of COVID‐19 remained and is underlined by a postoperative mortality.

Background Ankle‐brachial indexes (ABI) are a noninvasive diagnostic tool for peripheral arterial disease and a marker of increased cardiovascular risk. ABI is calculated using the highest systolic blood pressure of the 4 ankle arteries (bilateral dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial). Accordingly, patients may be assigned a normal ABI when the result would be abnormal if calculated using one of the other blood pressure readings. Cardiovascular outcomes for patients with discordant ABIs are undescribed. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ABI measurement for any indication between January 1996 and June 2018. Those with normal ABIs (1.00–1.39) were included. We compared patients with all 4 normal ABIs (calculated using all 4 ankle arteries; n=15 577, median age 64.0 years, 54.4% men) to those with discordant ABIs (at least 1 abnormal ABI ≤0.99; n=2095, median age 66.0 years, 47.8% men). The outcomes assessed were ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and all‐cause mortality. Compared with patients with concordant normal ABIs, patients with discordant ABIs were older; women; smoked; and had chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, or prior stroke. Patients with discordant ABIs had a greater risk of myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10–1.56), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.37–1.72), and all‐cause mortality (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16–1.39), including after adjustment for baseline comorbidities. Conclusions Discordant ABI results were associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all‐cause mortality in the studied population. Clinicians should examine ABI calculations using all 4 ankle arteries to better characterize a patient's cardiovascular risk.

Copyright of International Journal of Maritime History is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Patients with heart failure may benefit from implantation of a biventricular pacemaker. This article discusses the indications for biventricular pacemaker implantation and the assessment of patients with biventricular pacemakers. Biventricular pacemakers require more assessments than do traditional single- or dual-chamber pacemakers., (©2015 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)