Introduction Preoperative anemia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. As a result of the increased incidence of chronic blood loss and iron deficiency anemia in abdominal surgery patients and its impact on patient outcomes, we systematically evaluated the quality of evidence for preoperative intravenous (IV) administration of iron to patients with anemia undergoing major abdominal surgery with the focus on clinical outcomes. Methods In this systematic review, PubMed, Cochrane, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web Of Science, and Excerpta Medica Database databases were searched up to 2019 using specific keywords. Inclusion criteria were patients that were over 18 years of age, underwent abdominal surgery, and received an IV iron treatment in the preoperative setting. Results The nine studies included in the final systematic review do not provide consistent evidence of a reduced incidence of allogeneic blood transfusions with preoperative IV iron administration. However, IV iron administration did consistently cause a significant increase in hemoglobin levels relative to oral iron therapy or no iron. Conclusion Overall, these findings are consistent in that IV iron administration is highly effective at rapidly increasing hemoglobin levels in patients with iron deficiency anemia undergoing major abdominal surgery. Unfortunately, there is currently no evidence of reduced incidence of allogeneic blood transfusions or other enhanced outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01628-7.

No abstract

Early detection of diseases such as COVID-19 could be a critical tool in reducing disease transmission by helping individuals recognize when they should self-isolate, seek testing, and obtain early medical intervention. Consumer wearable devices that continuously measure physiological metrics hold promise as tools for early illness detection. We gathered daily questionnaire data and physiological data using a consumer wearable (Oura Ring) from 63,153 participants, of whom 704 self-reported possible COVID-19 disease. We selected 73 of these 704 participants with reliable confirmation of COVID-19 by PCR testing and high-quality physiological data for algorithm training to identify onset of COVID-19 using machine learning classification. The algorithm identified COVID-19 an average of 2.75 days before participants sought diagnostic testing with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 63%. The receiving operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was 0.819 (95% CI [0.809, 0.830]). Including continuous temperature yielded an AUC 4.9% higher than without this feature. For further validation, we obtained SARS CoV-2 antibody in a subset of participants and identified 10 additional participants who self-reported COVID-19 disease with antibody confirmation. The algorithm had an overall ROC AUC of 0.819 (95% CI [0.809, 0.830]), with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 80% in these additional participants. Finally, we observed substantial variation in accuracy based on age and biological sex. Findings highlight the importance of including temperature assessment, using continuous physiological features for alignment, and including diverse populations in algorithm development to optimize accuracy in COVID-19 detection from wearables.

Background: Double lumen endotracheal tubes (DLT) are commonly used to provide single lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. A fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) is typically used to confirm accurate DLT placement. Accounting for initial purchase, maintenance, repair and cleaning, the use of an FOB can cost as much as $312 per procedure. The VivaSight DLT (VS-DLT) incorporates a built-in camera, which is aimed at reducing FOB use and its associated costs. In this study, we compared the rate of FOB use when intubating using either a VS-DLT or a conventional DLT (c-DLT). Methods: This is a randomized controlled comparative study performed at a public county teaching hospital. A total of 50 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either a c-DLT (n=25) or a VS-DLT (n=25). The primary outcome was the rate of FOB use. Secondary outcomes included time to correct tube placement and incidence of malposition during surgery. Results: Use of the VS-DLT required significantly less FOB use (28%) compared to use of the c-DLT (100%). While there was no difference in the ease of intubation, the time to correct tube placement was significantly faster using a VS-DLT (54 vs. 156 s, P<0.001). Additionally, the incidence of tube malposition was significantly reduced in the VS-DLT group.Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significantly lower rate of FOB use when using a VS-DLT compared to a c-DLT. Placement of the VS-DLT was significantly quicker and malposition during surgery occurred significantly less than with the c-DLT. While intubating with a VS-DLT provides clinical benefits, it may not result in significant cost reductions when compared to a c-DLT.

No abstract