Objectives Timely diagnosis and treatment of increased intracranial pressure can decrease morbidity and prevent mortality. The present meta-analysis aims to determine the mean value of the ONSD measured in patients with various elevated ICP etiologies under different clinical settings, as well as comparing the value of ONSD between patients with and without elevated ICP. Methods This meta-analysis complied with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Statement8. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify ONSD measured by US for patients with increased ICP from establishment to October 2020. Results A total of 779 patients with elevated ICP among 22 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Studies were published between 2003 and 2020. Eighteen were comparative (18/22, 81.8%), and four were single-armed study (4/22, 18.2%). Twenty were prospective studies (20/22, 90.9%). There was moderate-to-high heterogeneity based on the prediction ellipse area and variance logit of sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions The mean value of the ONSD among patients diagnosed with increased ICP was 5.82 mm (95% CI 5.58–6.06 mm). Variations were observed based on etiology of intracranial hypertension, clinical settings where ONSD was measured, and standards for diagnosing intracranial hypertension. The US-ONSD among patient with elevated ICP was significantly higher than the normal control. Although a cut-off value is not clearly determined, these mean values can be implemented to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of US-ONSD in diagnosing intracranial hypertension in future studies.

Objective This study examined patterns of breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This retrospective study was approved by the Georgetown University IRB. Review of electronic medical records identified screening mammograms and breast MRIs between March 13, 2018 to December 31, 2020, for female patients aged 18 to 85 years. Descriptive statistics characterized patterns of breast cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Logistic regression analyses examined whether receipt of breast MRI differed over time and demographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of breast MRI in 2020. Results Data included 47 956 mammography visits in 32 778 patients and 407 screening breast MRI visits in 340 patients. After an initial decrease following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, both screening mammograms and screening breast MRI demonstrated early recovery. Although the mammography receipt remained sustained, the receipt of screening breast MRI decreased in late 2020. Odds of having a breast MRI did not differ between 2018 and 2019 (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.92%–1.25%; P = 0.384) but were significantly lower in 2020 versus 2019 (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.61%–0.94%; P = 0.011). No demographic or clinical factors were associated with receipt of breast MRI during the COVID-19 pandemic (all P-values ≥0.225). Conclusion Breast cancer screening decreased following the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although both procedures demonstrated early recovery, the rebound in screening breast MRI was not sustained. Interventions promoting return to screening breast MRI may be needed for high-risk women.

Objective: We sought to determine predictors, incidence, and interventions required for patients who developed barotrauma. Pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, and pneumomediastinum have all been reported as complications related to COVID-19-positive patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods: In this retrospective study, clinical and imaging data from COVID-19 patients were collected and reviewed by two independent intensivists between January 4, 2020 and January 10, 2020. Data were used to identify COVID-19-positive patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and the incidence of barotrauma. Two separate cohorts were created as non-injured (no barotrauma) and injured (barotrauma present). We then sought to identify the risk factors for barotrauma in the non-injured cohort on Days 0, 7, 10, and 14 after intubation and day of injury in the injured cohort. Results: Of the 264 patients with COVID-19, 55.8% were African American. The non-injured group was older (60 ± 15 versus 49 ± 16, p  = 0.006), with male predominance in the injured group versus non-injured group (75% versus 55%). A total of 16 (6.5%) patients developed one or more complications of barotrauma, defined as subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, or pneumomediastinum. Length of stay was longer for the injured group versus non-injured group (47 versus 25 days). Plateau pressure ( p  = 0.024), fraction of inspired oxygen ( p < 0.001), and driving pressure ( p = 0.001) were statistically significant in injured cohort. Mortality rate in non-injured versus injured was 49.4% versus 69%. Using random effect model, fraction of inspired oxygen ( p = 0.003) and mean airway pressure ( p  = 0.010) were significant at the time of injury. When comparing alive versus deceased in the injured cohort, thoracostomy placement in alive versus deceased was 80% versus 54.5%. Conclusion: COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation had a higher rate of barotrauma and were younger than those who did not develop barotrauma. Possible interventions to be considered to decrease barotrauma are decreased driving pressure goal and universal use of esophageal balloon manometry.

No abstract

No abstract