Search

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed the practice of medicine in America. During the March 2020 lockdown, elective cases were canceled to conserve hospital beds/resources resulting in financial losses for health systems and delayed surgical care. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy (aPCNL) has been shown to be safe and could be a strategy to ensure patients receive care that has been delayed, conserve hospital resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the safety and cost-effectiveness of patients undergoing aPCNL against standard PCNL (sPCNL). Materials and Methods: Ninty-eight patients underwent PCNL at Indiana University Methodist Hospital, a tertiary referral center, by three expert surgeons from January 2020 to September 2020. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the 30-day rates of emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and complications between sPCNL and aPCNL. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis and stone-free rates (SFRs). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure the groups were balanced. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 using independent t -tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables. Results: Ninety-eight patients underwent PCNL during the study period (sPCNL = 75 and aPCNL = 23). After propensity score matching, 42 patients were available for comparison (sPCNL = 19 and aPCNL = 23). We found no difference in 30-day ED visits, readmissions, or complications between the two groups. aPCNL resulted in cost savings of $5327 ± 442 per case. SFRs were higher for aPCNL compared with sPCNL. Conclusions: aPCNL appears safe to perform and does not have a higher rate of ED visits or readmissions compared with sPCNL. aPCNL may also be cost-effective compared with sPCNL.

Background: Laboratory parameters and the associated clinical outcomes have been an area of focus in COVID-19 research globally., Purpose: We performed a scoping review to synthesize laboratory values described in the literature and their associations with mortality and disease severity., Methods: We identified all primary studies involving laboratory values with clinical outcomes as a primary endpoint by performing data searches in various systematic review databases until 10th August, 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed all abstracts (13,568 articles) and full text (1126 articles) data. A total of 529 studies involving 165,020 patients from 28 different countries were included. Investigation of the number of studies and patients from a geographical perspective showed that the majority of published literature from January-March 2020 to April-June 2020 was from Asia, though there was a temporal shift in published studies to Europe and the Americas. For each laboratory value, the proportion of studies that noted a statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlation with adverse clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality, disease severity) was tabulated., Results and Conclusion: Among frequently reported laboratory values, blood urea nitrogen was the most often reported predictor of mortality (91%); neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was the most frequent statistically significant laboratory parameter in predicting disease severity (96%). This review highlights the temporal progression of laboratory value frequencies, as well as potentially distinct utilities of different markers for clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Future research pathways include using this collected data for focused quantitative meta-analyses of particular laboratory values correlated with clinical outcomes of mortality and disease severity., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)