The incidence of obstructive sleep apnea has been underestimated in morbidly obese patients who present for evaluation for weight loss surgery. This retrospective study shows that the incidence of obstructive sleep apnea in this patient population is greater than 70 per cent and increases in incidence as the body mass index increases. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common comorbidity in obese patients who present for evaluation for gastric bypass surgery. The incidence of sleep apnea in obese patients has been reported to be as high as 40 per cent. A retrospective review of our prospectively collected database was performed. All patients being evaluated for weight loss surgery for obesity were screened preoperatively for OSA using a sleep study. The overall incidence of sleep apnea in our patients was 78 per cent (227 of 290). All 227 were diagnosed by formal sleep study. There were 63 (22%) males and 227 (78%) females. The mean age was 43 years (range, 17–75 years). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 52 kg/m2 (range, 31–94 kg/m2). The prevalence of OSA in the severely obese group (BMI 35–39.9 kg/m2) was 71 per cent. For the morbidly obese group (BMI 40–40.9 kg/m2), the prevalence was 74 per cent and for the superobese group (BMI 50–59.9 kg/m2) 77 per cent. Those with a BMI 60 kg/m2 or greater, the prevalence of OSA rose to 95 per cent. The incidence of sleep apnea in patients presenting for weight loss surgery was greater than 70 per cent in our study. Patients presenting for weight loss surgery should undergo a formal sleep study to diagnose OSA before bariatric surgery.

COVID-19 is the most consequential pandemic of the 21st century. Since the earliest stage of the 2019-2020 epidemic, animal models have been useful in understanding the etiopathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and rapid development of vaccines/drugs to prevent, treat or eradicate SARS-CoV-2 infection. Early SARS-CoV-1 research using immortalized in-vitro cell lines have aided in understanding different cells and receptors needed for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, due to their ability to be easily manipulated, continue to broaden our understanding of COVID-19 disease in in-vivo models. The scientific community determined animal models as the most useful models which could demonstrate viral infection, replication, transmission, and spectrum of illness as seen in human populations. Until now, there have not been well-described animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection although transgenic mouse models (i.e. mice with humanized ACE2 receptors with humanized receptors) have been proposed. Additionally, there are only limited facilities (Biosafety level 3 laboratories) available to contribute research to aid in eventually exterminating SARS-CoV-2 infection around the world. This review summarizes the most successful animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection including studies in Non-Human Primates (NHPs) which were found to be susceptible to infection and transmitted the virus similarly to humans (e.g., Rhesus macaques, Cynomolgus, and African Green Monkeys), and animal models that do not require Biosafety level 3 laboratories (e.g., Mouse Hepatitis Virus models of COVID-19, Ferret model, Syrian Hamster model). Balancing safety, mimicking human COVID-19 and robustness of the animal model, the Murine Hepatitis Virus-1 Murine model currently represents the most optimal model for SARS-CoV-2/COVID19 research. Exploring future animal models will aid researchers/scientists in discovering the mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and in identifying therapies to prevent or treat COVID-19.

No abstract

In June 2016, an advanced extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) program consisting of a multidisciplinary team was initiated at a large level-one trauma center. The program was created to standardize management for patients with a wide variety of pathologies, including trauma. This study evaluated the impact of the advanced ECMO program on the outcomes of traumatically injured patients undergoing ECMO. A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients sustaining traumatic injury who required ECMO support from January 2014 to September 2017. The primary outcome was to determine survival in trauma ECMO patients in the two timeframes, before and after initiation of the advanced ECMO program. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, length of stay, ventilator usage, and ECMO days. One hundred and thirty eight patients were treated with ECMO during the study period. Of the 138 patients, 22 sustained traumatic injury. Seven patients were treated in our pre-group and 15 in our post-group. The majority of patients were treated with VV ECMO. Our post group VV ECMO extracorporeal survival rate was 64% and our survival to discharge was 55%. This study demonstrated an improvement in survival after implementation of our advanced ECMO program. The implementation of a multidisciplinary trauma ECMO team dedicated to the rescue of critically ill patients is the key for achieving excellent outcomes in the trauma population.