Collateral damage due to 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) represents an emerging issue. Symptoms of COVID-19 are not disease-specific. Differential diagnosis is challenging and the exclusion of other life-threatening diseases has major caveats. In the era of this pandemic, diagnosis of other life-threatening diseases might delay treatment. The Food and Drug Administration has recently authorized the first antibodybased test for COVID-19; however, RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs remains the recommended test for diagnosis. We present the first report of a false positive COVID-19 antibody test in a case of Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (GPA). Specifically, the case concerns an 82-year-old female, never smoker, who was admitted to our hospital with symptoms of fever and general fatigue that had lasted 7 days. She already had a positive IgM test for COVID-19, yet multiple RT-PCR tests had returned as negative for SARS-CoV-2. In the following days, her renal function deteriorated, while hematuria and proteinuria with active urinary sediment developed. Based on high clinical suspicion for ANCA-associated vasculitis, we performed a complete immunologic profile which revealed positive c-ANCA with elevated titers of anti-PR3. Pulses of methylprednisolone along with cyclophosphamide were applied. At day 10, treatment response was noticed as indicated by respiratory and renal function improvement. This report highlights the need for meticulous patient evaluation in order to avoid misdiagnosis in the era of COVID-19.

The thoracic phase of minimally invasive esophagectomy was initially performed in the lateral decubitus position (LDP); however, many experts have gradually transitioned to a prone position (PP) approach. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantitatively compare the two approaches. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies comparing outcomes between patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery in the PP versus the LDP. In total, 15 studies with 1454 patients (PP; n = 710 vs. LDP; n = 744) were included. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the PP provides statistically significant reduction in postoperative respiratory complications (Risk ratios 0.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.34–0.76, P < 0.001), blood loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] –108.97, 95% CI –166.35 to −51.59 mL, P < 0.001), ICU stay (WMD –0.96, 95% CI –1.7 to −0.21 days, P = 0.01) and total hospital stay (WMD –2.96, 95% CI –5.14 to −0.78 days, P = 0.008). In addition, prone positioning increases the overall yield of chest lymph node dissection (WMD 2.94, 95% CI 1.54–4.34 lymph nodes, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in regards to anastomotic leak rate, mortality and 5-year overall survival was encountered. Subgroup analysis revealed that the protective effect of prone positioning against pulmonary complications was more pronounced for patients undergoing single-lumen tracheal intubation. A head to head comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone versus the LDP reveals superiority of the former method, with emphasis on the reduction of postoperative respiratory complications and reduced length of hospitalization. Long-term oncologic outcomes appear equivalent, although validation through prospective studies and randomized controlled trials is still necessary.

No abstract

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a recognised and significant complication of chronic lung disease (CLD) and hypoxia (referred to as group 3 PH) that is associated with increased morbidity, decreased quality of life and worse survival. The prevalence and severity of group 3 PH varies within the current literature, with the majority of CLD-PH patients tending to have non-severe disease. The aetiology of this condition is multifactorial and complex, while the prevailing pathogenetic mechanisms include hypoxic vasoconstriction, parenchymal lung (and vascular bed) destruction, vascular remodelling and inflammation. Comorbidities such as left heart dysfunction and thromboembolic disease can further confound the clinical picture. Noninvasive assessment is initially undertaken in suspected cases (e.g.cardiac biomarkers, lung function, echocardiogram), while haemodynamic evaluation with right heart catheterisation remains the diagnostic gold standard. For patients with suspected severe PH, those with a pulmonary vascular phenotype or when there is uncertainty regarding further management, referral to specialist PH centres for further investigation and definitive management is mandated. No disease-specific therapy is currently available for group 3 PH and the focus of management remains optimisation of the underlying lung therapy, along with treating hypoventilation syndromes as indicated.