BackgroundCases of non-traumatic splenic rupture are rare and entails a potentially grave medical outcome. Hence, it is important to consider the differential diagnosis of a non-traumatic splenic rupture in patients with acute or insidious abdominal pain. The incidence of rupture in Diffuse B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is highly infrequent (Paulvannan and Pye, Int J Clin Pract 57:245–6, 2003; Gedik et el., World J Gastroenterol 14:6711–6716, 2008), despite reports of various non-traumatic splenic rupture in the literature (Orloff and Peksin, Int Abstr Surg 106:1-11, 1958; Paulvannan and Pye, Int J Clin Pract 57:245–6, 2003). In this article, we attempt to highlight the features of a rare cause of splenic rupture that might serve as a future reference point for the detection of similar cases during routine clinical practice.Case presentationA 40-year-old man presented with 1 week history of left hypochondriac pain associated with abdominal distention. There was no history of preceding trauma or fever. Clinical examination revealed signs of tachycardia, pallor and splenomegaly. He had no evidence of peripheral stigmata of chronic liver disease. In addition, haematological investigation showed anemia with leucocytosis and raised levels of lactate dehydrogenase enzyme. However, peripheral blood film revealed no evidence of any blast or atypical cells. In view of these findings, imaging via ultrasound and computed tomography of the abdomen was performed. The results of these imaging tests showed splenic collections that was suggestive of splenic rupture and hematoma. Patient underwent emergency splenectomy and the histopathological report confirmed the diagnosis as DLBCL.ConclusionsThe occurrence of true spontaneous splenic rupture is uncommon. In a recent systematic review of 613 cases of splenic rupture, only 84 cases were secondary to hematological malignancy. Acute leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma were the most frequent causes of splenic rupture, followed by chronic and acute myelogeneous leukemias. At present, only a few cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have been reported. The morbidity and mortality rate is greatly increased when there is a delay in the diagnosis and intervention of splenic rupture cases. Hence, there should be an increased awareness amongst both physicians and surgeons that a non-traumatic splenic rupture could be the first clinical presentation of a DLBCL.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background SARS-CoV2 pandemic has caused major impact on patient care worldwide. We experienced a surge of cases beginning March 2020 leading to the government imposing a movement control order, more commonly known as ‘lockdown’ starting 18th March 2020. As such, various changes were implemented by our center to the clinical pathway for STEMI patients including using thrombolysis as the preferred initial treatment modality. Purpose We aim to determine the impact of SARS-CoV2 pandemic on the clinical outcome of acute STEMI patients in our center which is a large regional tertiary hospital for cardiology. Methods and results: This is a single center retrospective cross-sectional study from 1st January 2020 until 31st May 2020. We compared clinical outcomes of patients admitted for acute STEMI before (group 1) and after (group 2) 15th March 2020 which is the date our center implemented changes to our STEMI care pathway. A total of 172 cases of acute STEMI was admitted to our center during this period. Admission for STEMI was noticeably lower after the lockdown implementation (group 1, n = 97 vs group 2, n = 75). The median time from symptom to presentation at our center did not differ between the two groups being 4.15h[2.78,7.28] vs 4.42h[2.97,8.01] p = 0.702, suggesting no out-of-hospital delays in management. Majority of the patients in group 1 (n = 75, 77.2%) received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs only 17 (22.7%) in group 2. Most in group 2 (n = 54, 72%) received thrombolytic therapy and subsequently underwent coronary intervention within the same admission. This shows a shift in the preferred initial treatment modality for STEMI at our center during this period. The door to balloon time for patients undergoing primary PCI during this period was also numerically higher in group 2 but the difference was not statistically significant at 46min [38,63] vs 59min [45,72], p = 0.063, most likely due to the additional preparation needed in terms of SARS-CoV2 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) prior to the procedure.  The primary composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock between the two groups (17.5% vs 24.3%, p = 0.275) did not show any significant difference. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock were 4.1% vs 6.7% (p = 0.458) and 15.5% vs 21.9% (p = 0.281) respectively. Conclusions This study suggests that thrombolysis as the preferred initial treatment modality for STEMI could be a reasonable temporary measure during the initial phase of a global pandemic to reduce infection risk of healthcare providers without compromising patient outcomes until adequate PPE and testing modalities are available for primary PCI to be performed safely. A follow-up study is needed to determine the long-term outcome of these patients.