RESUMEN

Recent data suggest that ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) therapy may reduce susceptibility to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and even improve clinical outcomes when coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was diagnosed. However, clinical evidence of UDCA's ability to prevent severe forms of COVID-19 remains limited and contradictory. We evaluated the association between UDCA exposure and the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 in a large multicenter population of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) followed during the pandemic period before vaccination. An exposed/unexposed cohort study and a nested case-control study were performed. The primary endpoint was severe COVID-19, defined as SARS-CoV2 infection requiring hospitalization. The secondary endpoint was COVID-19-associated intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and their confidence intervals (CI) were determined after controlling for age, gender, comorbidities at risk for COVID-19, severity of CLD, and prior hospitalizations. A total of 10 147 patients, including 1322 exposed and 8825 not exposed to UDCA, totaling 21 867 person-years of follow-up, were included in the cohort analysis, while 88 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and 840 matched controls were eligible for the nested case-control analysis. In both analyses, exposure to UDCA was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19, with aOR (95% confidence interval) values of 0.48 (0.20-1.19) and 0.93 (0.26-3.29), respectively. Furthermore, there was no significant reduction in the risk of ICU admission or death. In this large population of patients with CLD, UDCA exposure was not associated with a reduced risk of severe COVID-19.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are still a concern in hospital units tending to seriously ill patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of active surveillance program to identify asymptomatically VRE colonized patient remains debatable. This work aims at evaluating the cost of a failure in the active surveillance of VRE that had resulted in an outbreak in a French University Hospital. FINDINGS: A VRE outbreak was triggered by a failure in the systematic VRE screening in a medico-surgical ward specialised in liver transplantation as a patient was not tested for VRE. This failure was likely caused by the reduction of healthcare resource. The outbreak involved 13 patients. Colonized patients were grouped in a dedicated part of the infectious diseases unit and tended by a dedicated staff. Transmission was halted within two months after discovery of the index case.The direct cost of the outbreak was assessed as the cost of staffing, disposable materials, hygiene procedures, and surveillance cultures.The loss of income from spare isolation beds was computed by difference with the same period in the preceding year. Payments were drawn from the hospital database. The direct cost of the outbreak (2008 Euros) was €60 524 and the loss of income reached €110 915. CONCLUSIONS: Despite this failure, the rapid eradication of the VRE outbreak was a consequence of the rapid isolation of colonized patient. Yet, eradicating even a limited outbreak requires substantial efforts and resources. This underlines that special attention has to be paid to strictly adhere to active surveillance program.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biliary atresia, the most common cause of childhood cirrhosis, increases the risks for portal hypertension and gastrointestinal bleeding. We report the results from a single-center study of primary and secondary prophylaxis of bleeding in children with portal hypertension and high-risk varices. METHODS: We collected data from 66 children with major endoscopic signs of portal hypertension, including grade 3 esophageal varices or grade 2 varices with red wale markings and/or gastric varices, treated consecutively from February 2001 through May 2011. Thirty-six children (mean age, 22 mo) underwent primary prophylaxis (sclerotherapy and/or banding, depending on age and weight). Thirty children (mean age, 24 mo) who presented with gastrointestinal bleeding received endoscopic treatment to prevent a relapse of bleeding (secondary prophylaxis). RESULTS: In the primary prophylaxis group, a mean number of 4.2 sessions were needed to eradicate varices; no bleeding from gastroesophageal varices was observed after eradication. Varices reappeared in 37% of children, and 97% survived for 3 years. In the secondary prophylaxis group, a mean number of 4.6 sessions was needed to eradicate varices. Varices reappeared in 45%, and 10% had breakthrough bleeding; 84% survived for 3 years. There were no or only minor complications of either form of prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic therapy as primary or secondary prophylaxis of bleeding appears to be well tolerated and greatly reduces the risk of variceal bleeding in children with biliary atresia and high-risk gastroesophageal varices. However, there is a risk that varices will recur, therefore continued endoscopic surveillance is needed.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The emergency department of a university hospital centre receives 40,000 patients per year. A study was conducted in its surgical unit to assess the existing dysfunctions and to develop corrective measures. METHOD: The method used was that of a prospective survey, based on two questionnaires: one on the waiting time, provided by each patient and by the different participants and one distributed to the consultants to measure their satisfaction with regard to the services rendered. The data were analysed using multivariate methods. RESULTS: The questionnaire "waiting time" was completed for 812 patients. The median time spent in the emergency department was of 100 minutes, 47% of patients saw a physician less than 15 minutes after their arrival. The median medical time was of 45 minutes. The prescription of supplementary examinations significantly increased the time spent in the department (p < 0.01). Two hundred and twenty persons completed the "perception" questionnaire. Forty percent of patients considered that they had to wait too long, the time spent waiting for a medical examination was too long for 27.7%; 62.5% of the consultants were not informed of the foreseeable waiting time and the reasons for this delay. The participants were well cared for in 95.4% of cases, and well informed on the possible evolution of their lesions (88.4% of cases). The recommendations on leaving the department were clearly explained for 93.7%, 98.6% of the persons interviewed had been received kindly and 96.5% would return to the department if they needed to. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the insufficient information provided on the waiting time and the reasons for this delay. The availability of a nurse to welcome and assist the patients would improve these parameters. Posters should be displayed with information on the foreseeable waiting time. During a meeting to present the results of this study, all the staff were made aware of this problem.

Asunto(s)