Objective: Liver biopsy is still the gold standard for the determination of liver fibrosis and necroinflammatory activity. It is an invasive method and may lead to severe complications. The aim of this study was to determine the evaluation of percutaneous liver biopsy complications in patients with chronic viral hepatitis.
Materials and Methods:1165 patients, who were followed with the diagnosis of chronic viral hepatitis and who were applied percutaneous liver biopsy between January 2000 and February 2013 at the outpatient clinic of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, were included in the study.
Results:Of 1165 patients who underwent liver biopsy, 196 (86 male, 110 female) were diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, 969 (559 male, 410 female) were diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B. The mean age was 43.3 and 55.4% were male. 11% of the patients were diagnosed with chronic renal failure and underwent haemodialysis. Minor complication rate was about 20% (severe pain required usage of analgesic drugs in 19.8%, abdominal pain in 22.6%) whereas major complication rate was 1.15% (pneumothorax in 0.17%, heamobilia in 0.08%, hematoma in 0.9%). We did not observe severe complications such as fever, abscess, anaphylaxis, bacteraemia, organ perforations, sepsis or death.
Conclusion:Despite being an invasive procedure, percutaneous liver biopsy can be considered a safe method because of the low rates of severe complications observed in our patients.
This prospective observational study describes the pharmacokinetic characteristics of favipiravir in adult patients hospitalized for mild to moderate COVID‐19 with a positive RT‐PCR test. Favipiravir was administered for 5 days, with a loading dose of 3200 mg and a maintenance dose of 1200 mg/day. Serial blood samples were collected on Day 2 and Day 4 of the therapy. Laboratory findings of the patients (n = 21) and in‐hospital mortality were recorded. Favipiravir concentrations exhibited substantial variability and a significant decrease during the treatment of COVID‐19. The median favipiravir trough concentration (C0‐trough) on Day 2 was 21.26 (interquartile range [IQR], 8.37–30.78) μg/mL, whereas it decreased significantly to 1.61 (IQR, 0.00–6.41) μg/mL on Day 4, the area under the concentration–time curve decreased by 68.5%. Day 2 C0‐trough of female patients was higher than male patients. Our findings indicate that favipiravir concentrations show significant variability during the treatment of COVID‐19 and therapeutic drug monitoring may be necessary to maintain targeted concentrations.
Objective: We aimed to analyse the positivity rate and cycle threshold values indicating viral loads for SARS CoV-2 among different respiratory specimens and also to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of saliva samples. Materials and Methods: We included combined oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab (cONS), sputum, and tracheal aspirate (TA) specimens of patients. Unpreserved saliva samples were collected prospectively from hospitalized patients within 72 hours of admission. SARS CoV-2 RNA was extracted by using Bio-Speedy viral nucleic acid buffer than RT-PCR was performed with Bio-Speedy COVID-19 qPCR detection kit. Results: Retrospective evaluation revealed SARS CoV-2 RNA in 19.66% of cONS (n: 5819), 30.77% of sputum (n: 39), 29.41% of TA samples (n: 34) from 4812 patients. In the majority (86.72%) of the samples, the first cONS sample was positive. Consecutive cONS and sputum/TA samples were investigated in 52 patients of whom 11 were positive with either of these samples. Saliva positivity was detected in 60% of cONS positive (n: 20) and 30% of cONS negative (n: 12) patients. Conclusion: Although, cONS samples show the greatest diagnostic guidance, repeated sampling from multiple sites of the respiratory tract increases the possibility of COVID-19 diagnosis. Saliva samples might be considered as an alternative specimen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.