Background Endemic to the hospital environment, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a leading bacterial pathogen that causes deadly infections such as bacteremia and endocarditis. In past viral pandemics, it has been the principal cause of secondary bacterial infections, significantly increasing patient mortality rates. Our world now combats the rapid spread of COVID-19, leading to a pandemic with a death toll greatly surpassing those of many past pandemics. However, the impact of co-infection with S. aureus remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to perform a high-quality scoping review of the literature to synthesize the existing evidence on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and S. aureus co-infection. Methods A scoping review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, medRxiv, and the WHO COVID-19 database using a combination of terms. Articles that were in English, included patients infected with both COVID-19 and S. aureus, and provided a description of clinical outcomes for patients were eligible. From these articles, the following data were extracted: type of staphylococcal species, onset of co-infection, patient sex, age, symptoms, hospital interventions, and clinical outcomes. Quality assessments of final studies were also conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools. Results Searches generated a total of 1922 publications, and 28 articles were eligible for the final analysis. Of the 115 co-infected patients, there were a total of 71 deaths (61.7%) and 41 discharges (35.7%), with 62 patients (53.9%) requiring ICU admission. Patients were infected with methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus, with the majority (76.5%) acquiring co-infection with S. aureus following hospital admission for COVID-19. Aside from antibiotics, the most commonly reported hospital interventions were intubation with mechanical ventilation (74.8 %), central venous catheter (19.1 %), and corticosteroids (13.0 %). Conclusions Given the mortality rates reported thus far for patients co-infected with S. aureus and COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccination and outpatient treatment may be key initiatives for reducing hospital admission and S. aureus co-infection risk. Physician vigilance is recommended during COVID-19 interventions that may increase the risk of bacterial co-infection with pathogens, such as S. aureus, as the medical community’s understanding of these infection processes continues to evolve.

Highlights COVID-19 patients are at increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Escalated-dose thromboprophylaxis may help reduce the rate of thromboembolic events. The bleeding risk is highest for patients treated with therapeutic anticoagulation.

clinical conl)iliation miay be produced in quite a different way, as imiay be seeni by reference to a very remarkable case, prtviously cited fromii l'ick, of destruction of the auditory wordt enitrie in eaclh heinispheret. These aie tlh onily, cases of "isolated word deafness" known to mne. " It will be seen from whlat I lhave said that this rare group) of symiiptoms is capable of being induced in two very diltlrent modes-just as we sliall find subsequently thlat wlhat 1Wj'erine lhas called " pure word blindness" may also be produced in two dillerent modes, and that the modes are analogous in the two cases. I'ick was fully aware of the very unusual niature of Ihis case. Hle recognised that it could not be a case of subcortical word deafness of Liclhtheim's and D1)jerine's type, thiougl lie was not prepared to advance any othier interpretation. 31irvalli(I, hlowever, has been so very uncritical as to cite it" as ani example of D6jerine's type, notwithlstaniding the fact of the existence of the double cortical lesions occupying the sites of tlhez auditory word ceiitres. REFERENCES.

A SUBJECT seems to me to require an apology on account of its triteness only in cases where trituration has resulted in uniformity of opinion. As such is not the case on many points concerning stricture of the urethra, I ask you to bear with me while I lay before you some remarks founded on my observation of that disease. Should these appear to you disjointed and incomplete, let me say, in extenuation, that this must often be the case when one does not allow one's imaginatŸ to fill up the interstices. In a very able paper read before this Section in 1885, Mr. Thornley Stoker gave it as bis opinion, that at that time Dublin surgeons were pretty well agreed lst~ on "the superiority of internal urethrotomy over any forro of dilatation ;" 2ndly~ on the advantage of the method of Maisonneuve over that of Civiale and his followers ; and, as far as I can ascertain, these statements continue to be a fair expression of the opinions of to-day. For myself, I am inclined to gire to them a full and unhesitating assent. But ir we look outside Ireland we shall find some of the most experienced authorities giving a direct contradiction to both assertions.Of the first, directly the reverse is maintained by Mr. Reginald Harrison ; of the second, by Sir Henry Thompsom In the presence of such opposition, it is surely right to continue to look well into the matter~ to carefully record our experiencei, and publish them from time to time, till we either arrivi at agreement or at aja undexstanding of why we differ.

No abstract