Aim:The objective of this study was to investigate the possibility of a relationship between the value of the platelet mass index and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and to compare biochemical parameters among comorbidity groups in OSAS patients. Materials and Methods:The patients were divided into two groups; the patient group consisted of patients who had previously presented to the emergency department of our hospital and were diagnosed with OSAS through polysomnography, while the control group included individuals who had no diagnosed chronic diseases.The patients in the OSAS group were further divided into subgroups of patients with diabetes, diabetes + hypertension, diabetes + hyperlipidemia, diabetes + cardiovascular disease, diabetes + hypertension + hyperlipidemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension.Physical examination, complete blood count, and biochemical test outcomes of both groups as well as polysomnography data of the patient group were evaluated retrospectively. Results:The mean BMI value was statistically significantly higher in OSAS patients than in with patients of the control group (24.28±1.00 vs 29.73±2.51 kg/m 2 ). The mean platelet volume (MPV) was significantly higher in the control group (10.13±1.09) than in the OSAS group (7.98±1.32) (p<0.001). The total platelet mass index, calculated by multiplying the platelet count by the MPV, was significantly higher in the control group (2,737.92±548.90) than in the OSAS patient group (2,104.89±462.86) (p<0.001). Conclusion:According to the results of this study, the platelet mass index, MPV, and/or total platelet count are not diagnostic. However, in patients presenting to the emergency department with complaints of fatigue, headache, inattention, and daytime drowsiness, they may be warning parameters indicating the possibility of OSAS.

No abstract

No abstract

The objective of this study was to compare platelet mass index, platelets count/mean platelet volume and other hemogram parameters between COVID-19 patients and a control group and to determine the parameters that are significant in discrimination between COVID-19 and healthy control patients without COVID 19. Methods: Data of a total of 80 patients who presented to the emergency department of our hospital with the symptoms suggesting COVID-19 with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result and 80 healthy controls with a PCR (-) test results were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' laboratory parameters including white blood cells (WBC), neutrophils count, lymphocytes count, monocytes count, neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (NLR), lymphocytes to monocytes ratio (LMR), platelets (PLT), platelets to lymphocytes ratio (PLR), mean platelet volume (MPV), red blood cell distribution width (RDW), platelet mass index (PMI), red blood cell distribution width/ mean platelet volume (RDW/MPV) and platelet count/ mean platelet volume (PLT/MPV) ratios were analyzed. At the same time a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for determining laboratory indicators in distinguishing control and COVID-19 positive cases from each other. Results: In our stuy, WBC, lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophils, LMR, platelets, PMI and PLT/MPV levels decreased, while PLR and MPV values increased in COVID-19 patients. According to ROC analysis, among the parameters examined in terms of making discrimination between COVID-19 and contol groups, LMR, PLR, PMI and PLT/MPV parameters had significant areas under curve. The best cutoff points of the parameter were found as <2.91 for LMR, 117.95 for PLR, 2167.65 for PMI and <25.13 for PLT/MPV. Conclusions: Our study revealed decreased WBC, lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophils, LMR, platelets, PMI and PLT/MPV levels and elevated PLR and MPV values in COVID-19 patients. We believe that these parameters can be helpful in follow-up of the prognosis of COVID-19 patients and distinguishing these patients from healthy persons without COVID-19.

Objective: Ubiquitin C-terminal Hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) enzyme levels were investigated in patients with epilepsy, epileptic seizure, remission period, and healthy individuals. Methods: Three main groups were evaluated, including epileptic seizure, patients with epilepsy in the non-seizure period, and healthy volunteers. The patients having a seizure in the Emergency department or brought by a postictal confusion were included in the epileptic attack group. The patients having a seizure attack or presenting to the Neurology outpatient department for follow up were included in the non-seizure (remission period) group. Results: The UCH-L1 enzyme levels of 160 patients with epilepsy (80 patients with epileptic attack and 80 patients with epilepsy in the non-seizure period) and 100 healthy volunteers were compared. Whereas the UCH-L1 enzyme levels were 8.30 (IQR=6.57‒11.40) ng/mL in all patients with epilepsy, they were detected as 3.90 (IQR=3.31‒7.22) ng/mL in healthy volunteers, and significantly increased in numbers for those with epilepsy (p<0.001). However, whereas the UCH-L1 levels were 8.50 (IQR=6.93‒11.16) ng/mL in the patients with epileptic seizures, they were 8.10 (IQR=6.22‒11.93) ng/mL in the non-seizure period, and no significant difference was detected (p=0.6123). When the UCH-L1 cut-off value was taken as 4.34 mg/mL in Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve analysis, the sensitivity and specificity detected were 93.75 and 66.00%, respectively (AUG=0.801; p<0.0001; 95%CI 0.747‒0.848) for patients with epilepsy. Conclusion: Even though UCH-L1 levels significantly increased more in patients with epilepsy than in healthy individuals, there was no difference between epileptic seizure and non-seizure periods.