Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the clinical presentations and outcomes of Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) in patients with underlying liver disease. We aimed to summarize the presentations and outcomes of COVID-19-positive patients and compare with historical controls. Methods Patients with known chronic liver disease who presented with superimposed COVID-19 (n = 28) between 22 April 2020 and 22 June 2020 were studied. Seventy-eight cirrhotic patients without COVID-19 were included as historical controls for comparison. Results A total of 28 COVID-19 patients (two without cirrhosis, one with compensated cirrhosis, sixteen with acute decompensation [AD], and nine with acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF]) were included. The etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (n = 9), non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (n = 2), viral (n = 5), autoimmune hepatitis (n = 4), and cryptogenic cirrhosis (n = 6). The clinical presentations included complications of cirrhosis in 12 (46.2%), respiratory symptoms in 3 (11.5%), and combined complications of cirrhosis and respiratory symptoms in 11 (42.3%) patients. The median hospital stay was 8 (7-12) days. The mortality rate in COVID-19 patients was 42.3% (11/26), as compared with 23.1% (18/78) in the historical controls (p = 0.077). All COVID-19 patients with ACLF (9/9) died compared with 53.3% (16/30) in ACLF of historical controls (p = 0.015). Mortality rate was higher in COVID-19 patients with compensated cirrhosis and AD as compared with historical controls 2/17 (11.8%) vs. 2/48 (4.2%), though not statistically significant (p = 0.278). Requirement of mechanical ventilation independently predicted mortality (hazard ratio 13.68). Both non-cirrhotic patients presented with respiratory symptoms and recovered uneventfully. Conclusion COVID-19 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with cirrhosis, with worst survival rates in ACLF. Mechanical ventilation is associated with a poor outcome.

No abstract

Background & objectives: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS and OPS) collection is widely accepted as the preferred method for obtaining respiratory samples. However, it has certain disadvantages which may be overcome by gargling. The primary objective of this study was to assess agreement between gargle lavage and swab as an appropriate respiratory sample for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The secondary objective was to assess the patient acceptability of the two sampling methods. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study done at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, on 50 confirmed COVID-19 patients. Paired swab (NPS and OPS) and gargle samples were taken within 72 h of their diagnosis. Samples were processed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Post-sample collection, a 10-point scale was administered to assess the level of discomfort with either of the collection methods. Results: All gargle samples were positive and comparable to their corresponding swab samples irrespective of the symptoms and duration of illness. The cycle threshold (C t ) values for gargle samples were slightly higher but comparable to those of swabs. Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Majority (72%) of the patients reported moderate-to-severe discomfort with swab collection in comparison to 24 per cent reporting only mild discomfort with gargle collection. Interpretation & conclusions: Our preliminary results show that the gargle lavage may be a viable alternative to swabs for sample collection for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Adoption of gargle lavage for sample collection will have a significant impact as it will enable easy self-collection, relieve healthcare workers and also lead to substantial cost savings by reducing the need for swabs and personal protective equipment.

BackgroundClinical benefits of recruitment maneuver in ARDS patients are controversial. A number of previous studies showed possible benefits; a large recent study reported that recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration may even be harmful. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the clinical utility of recruitment maneuver with low tidal volume ventilation in adult patients with ARDS.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing recruitment maneuver and lung protective ventilation strategy with lung protective strategy ventilation protocol alone in adult patients with ARDS has been included in this meta-analysis. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 10 November 2017 to identify potentially eligible trials. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for binary and continuous variables respectively.ResultsData of 2480 patients from 7 randomized controlled trials have been included in this meta-analysis and systemic review. Reported mortality at the longest available follow-up [RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.80, 1.08); p = 0.33], ICU mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.76, 1.10); p = 0.33] and in-hospital mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.83, 1.08); p = 0.45] were similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Duration of hospital stay [SMD (95% CI) 0.00 (− 0.09, 0.10); p = 0.92] and duration of ICU stays [SMD (95% CI) 0.05 (− 0.09, 0.19); p = 0.49] were also similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Risk of barotrauma was also similar.ConclusionUse of recruitment maneuver along with co-interventions such as PEEP titration does not provide any benefit in terms of mortality, length of ICU, and hospital stay in ARDS patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-018-0305-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains a health concern with new challenges emerging as the pandemic progresses. The recent rise of opportunistic infections especially mucormycosis in COVID-19 patients is further complicating their outcomes. Mucormycosis is well known to infect patients with diabetes mellitus, malignancy, chemotherapy, and other immunocompromised conditions. The treatment of COVID-19 largely remains systemic steroids and other immunomodulators that add to the risk of invasive fungal infection.Methodology: Here, we present a retrospective case series of 13 patients with individual clinical characteristics along with the demography and treatment details. The data were collected retrospectively in a single center that caters to a large population of COVID-19 patients with varying severity.Results: Thirteen patients were presented with COVID-19 associated mucormycosis (CAM). The median age was higher in non-survivors (49.5 years), with a higher odds of death (23.8) in those with severe COVID, having overall mortality of 64.3%. Moreover, diabetes mellitus was present in 61.5% of patients with a mortality of 75%. About 11 (84.6%) patients had received prior steroids for COVID-19. The incidence of hyperglycemia at admission was equal among both survivors and non-survivors. Conclusion:The prevalence of mucormycosis seems to be increasing among COVID-19 patients which may be associated with increased use of steroids, the possible immunocompromised state imposed by SARS-CoV-2, or co-existing conditions such as diabetes mellitus. The mortality of CAM is remarkably high and apart from preventive practices and rational use of immunomodulators, a high index of suspicion with early diagnosis would be key to survival.

Background & objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has so far affected over 41 million people globally. The limited supply of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) kits and reagents has made meeting the rising demand for increased testing incompetent, worldwide. A highly sensitive and specific antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT) is the need of the hour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a rapid chromatographic immunoassay-based test (index test) compared with a clinical reference standard (rRT-PCR). Methods: A cross-sectional, single-blinded study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in north India. Paired samples were taken for RDT and rRT-PCR (reference standard) from consecutive participants screened for COVID-19 to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the RDT. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the duration of illness and cycle threshold values. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement between the two tests. Results: Of the 330 participants, 77 were rRT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sixty four of these patients also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RDT. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 81.8 and 99.6 per cent, respectively. The sensitivity of RDT was higher (85.9%) in participants with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Interpretation & conclusions: With an excellent specificity and moderate sensitivity, this RDT may be used to rule in COVID-19 in patients with a duration of illness ≤5 days. Large-scale testing based on this RDT across the country would result in quick detection, isolation and treatment of COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

No abstract