Background: Previous studies on coronavirus disease 2019 have focused on populations with normal immunity, but lack data on immunocompromised populations. Objective: To evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia in kidney transplant recipients. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 10 renal transplant recipients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled in this retrospective study. In addition, 10 of their family members diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia were included in the control group. Intervention: Immunosuppressant reduction and low-dose methylprednisolone therapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The clinical outcomes (the severity of pneumonia, recovery rate, time of virus shedding, and length of illness) were compared with the control group by statistical analysis. Results and limitations: The clinical symptomatic, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia in the renal transplant recipients were similar to those of severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the general population. The severity of COVID-19 pneumonia was greater in the transplant recipients than in the control group (five severe/three critical cases vs one severe case). Five patients developed transient renal allograft damage. After a longer time of virus shedding (28.4 AE 9.3 vs 12.2 AE 4.6 d in the control group) and a longer course of illness (35.3 AE 8.3 vs 18.8 AE 10.5 d in the control group), nine of the 10 transplant patients recovered successfully after treatment. One patient developed acute renal graft failure and died of progressive respiratory failure. Conclusions: Kidney transplant recipients had more severe COVID-19 pneumonia than the general population, but most of them recovered after a prolonged clinical course and virus shedding. Findings from this small group of cases may have important implications for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in immunosuppressed populations. Patient summary: Immunosuppressed transplant recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection had more severe pneumonia, but most of them still achieved a good prognosis after appropriate treatment.

Preoperative risk factors evaluated by the present study confirm the likelihood of conversion. Recognition of these factors was important for understanding the characteristics of patients at a higher risk of conversion. Identifying risk factors will help the surgeon to plan and counsel the patients and introduce new policies.

BackgroundLaparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for stone can be carried out by either laparoscopic transcystic stone extraction (LTSE) or laparoscopic choledochotomy (LC). It remains unknown as to which approach is optimal for management of gallbladder stone with common bile duct stones (CBDS) in Chinese patients.MethodsFrom May 2000 to February 2009, we prospective treated 346 consecutive patients with gallbladder stones and CBDS with laparoscopic cholecystectomy and LCBDE. Intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay and costs were analyzed.ResultsBecause of LCBDE failure,16 cases (4.6%) required open surgery. Of 330 successful LCBDE-treated patients, 237 underwent LTSE and 93 required LC. No mortality occurred in either group. The bile duct stone clearance rate was similar in both groups. Patients in the LTSE group were significantly younger and had fewer complications with smaller, fewer stones, shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stays, and lower costs, compared to those in the LC group. Compared with patients with T-tube insertion, patients in the LC group with primary closure had shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower costs.ConclusionsIn cases requiring LCBDE, LTSE should be the first choice, whereas LC may be restricted to large, multiple stones. LC with primary closure without external drainage of the CBDS is as effective and safe as the T-tube insertion approach.

Background and aims: Endoscopic resection is increasingly performed for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). However, the safety and outcomes remain elusive. We aimed in this retrospective study to compare operative complications and prognosis between endoscopically and surgically resected small (≤ 5 cm) GIST tumor groups. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, we compared demographics, clinical outcomes, and the R0 resection rate between the endoscopy (n =268) and surgery (n =141) groups. Only GIST tumors in size of ≤ 5.0 cm were recruited for this comparison study. Results: Overall, the mean age of patients was 59.0 years (range: 31.0-83.0). The male-female ratio was 0.68. The most common site of GIST was, in the descending order, the gastric fundus (55%), corpus (27.6%), cardia (10.8%), and antrum (6.6%). Compared with the surgery group, GIST tumors in the endoscopy group were significantly smaller (1.69±0.9 cm, vs . 3.20±1.2 cm in the surgery group; P <0.001) in size; postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (4.66±1.5 days, vs. 8.11±5.0; P <0.001); post-resection time to first liquid diet was significantly shorter (1.94±1.1 days, vs. 4.63±2.6; P < 0.001); the incidence of operative and post-operative complications was significantly fewer (p < 0.05), and hospital costs were significantly lower (20115.4±5113.5¥, vs. 43378.4±16795.7¥; P < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was significantly lower in the endoscopy (93.3%) than in the surgery (99.3%) groups (P< 0.01). In the endoscopy group, 176 (65.7%) and 69 (25.7%) patients were found to be at very low and low risk of aggressiveness, respectively, in comparison to 27(19.2%) and 86 (61.0%) patients in the surgery group, respectively (P <0.001). Among 409 cases, 50 (12.2%) were found to be at intermediate or high risk of aggressiveness, 20 of which were treated with adjuvant imatinib therapy and but only 8/20 taking imatinib for 1 to 3 months because of side effects and high costs. No local or distant tumor recurrence was observed over an average of 33.5-month follow-ups. Two patients died of other disease in the surgery group. Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of selected small gastric GISTs (≤ 5cm) was feasible, safe, and associated with better intraoperative results and an equal postoperative course, compared to surgical resection.

Gut microbiota dysbiosis is a recognized contributing factor to many noncommunicable diseases, but more evidence is still needed to illustrate its causative impact on mental and brain health disorders and mechanism(s) for targeted mitigation.

Early loss of grafted islets is the main obstacle to achieve favorable outcomes of islet transplantation. Mesenchymal stem cells are known to have a protective effect; however, its mechanism remains unclear. We hypothesized that bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) can protect grafted islets against endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERS)-induced apoptosis. In syngeneic streptozocin-induced diabetic BALB/c mice, islet grafts decreased blood glucose levels; however, the effect was not fully functional from the immediate post-transplant phase. β-Cell apoptosis was proven on days 1 and 3 after transplantation. Ultra-structural evidence of ERS was observed along with increased expressions of marker protein BIP and apoptosis-related protein CHOP. In contrast, BMSC co-transplantation maintained glucose hemostasis, inhibited apoptosis and alleviated ERS. In ex vivo culture, BMSCs improved viability of islets and decreased apoptosis. Increased ERS were observed in cultured islets exposed to hypoxia, but not in the islets cocultured with BMSCs. Furthermore, cocultured BMSCs protected islets against ERS-induced apoptosis as well as improved their insulin secretion, and BMSCs alleviated ERS by improving Myc expression through both stromal cell-derived factor 1 signal and contact effect. In conclusion, BMSCs protected the grafted islets against ERS-induced apoptosis during the early stage after transplantation. This study opens a new arena for ERS-targeted therapy to improve outcomes of islet transplantation. Stem Cells 2018;36:1045-1061.

No abstract

No abstract