Aims While pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be a major issue in COVID-19, data remain sparse. We aimed to describe the risk factors and baseline characteristics of patients with PE in a cohort of COVID-19 patients. Methods and results In a retrospective multicentre observational study, we included consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients without computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-proven PE diagnosis and those who were directly admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) were excluded. Among 1240 patients (58.1% men, mean age 64 ± 17 years), 103 (8.3%) patients had PE confirmed by CTPA. The ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in the PE group (for both P < 0.001). In an univariable analysis, traditional venous thrombo-embolic risk factors were not associated with PE (P > 0.05), while patients under therapeutic dose anticoagulation before hospitalization or prophylactic dose anticoagulation introduced during hospitalization had lower PE occurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14–0.91, P = 0.04; and OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06–0.18, P < 0.001, respectively]. In a multivariable analysis, the following variables, also statistically significant in univariable analysis, were associated with PE: male gender (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003–1.069, P = 0.04), anticoagulation with a prophylactic dose (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.85, P < 0.001) or a therapeutic dose (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82–0.92, P < 0.001), C-reactive protein (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04, P = 0.001), and time from symptom onset to hospitalization (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.006–1.038, P = 0.002). Conclusion PE risk factors in the COVID-19 context do not include traditional thrombo-embolic risk factors but rather independent clinical and biological findings at admission, including a major contribution to inflammation.

Mohs micrographic surgery is safe, with a very low rate of adverse events, an exceedingly low rate of serious adverse events, and an undetectable mortality rate. Common complications include infections, followed by impaired wound healing and bleeding. Bleeding and wound-healing issues are often associated with preexisting anticoagulation therapy, which is nonetheless managed safely during MMS. We are not certain whether the small effects seen with the use of sterile gloves and antiseptics and antibiotics are clinically significant and whether wide-scale practice changes would be cost-effective given the small risk reductions.

No abstract

No abstract

Aim: Patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in the USA have historically been under-represented in research trials. Understanding their viewpoints regarding participation in N-of-1 trials is imperative as we design and implement these studies. Materials & methods: We conducted six focus groups of racial and ethnic minority patients (n = 25) and providers (n = 9). We used content analysis to identify themes. Results: Our results noted the importance of considering family members in N-of-1 trial recruitment and participation, patients’ desire for education as a design feature, for ‘lifestyle’ changes as a treatment option and for use of nonevidence-based treatments in the design of future N-of-1 trials. Conclusion: Personalized trials have the potential to change the way we deliver primary care and improve disparities for minorities.