IMPORTANCE Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×10 3 /μL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [50-71] years; 237 [42.2%] women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, −6.6% to 9.8%]; odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.76-1.48]; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% [1-sided 97.5% CI, −ϱ to 3.4%]; odds ratio, 1.83 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93]), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%]; P = .01).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days...

Introduction Residency applications via virtual-interview could potentially mitigate the extensive cost and time required for customary in-person interviews. We outline the perception of medical students and residents on the use of virtual-interview for residency applications in lieu of in-person interviews. Methods We obtained 1824 responses from medical students and residents through an online questionnaire between March2019-Feb2020 in Texas-United States. The survey had 11 statements (five in favor of in-person interviews and 6 in favor of virtual interviews) that respondents could rank on a 5-point Likert scale. All statements' scores were summed based on the response given by each participant to create a total score between 11 and 55. The perception of the two groups was analyzed using an independent sample T-test and ANOVA. Results We received a total of 1711 responses from medical students and 113 from medical residents. Respondents were more female (82.2% of medical students and 47.8% of residents), with a mean age of 22.87±3.42 years old for medical students and 28.72±4.35 years old for residents. Both groups preferred in-person interviews; however, the residents were significantly more in favor (P = 0.03). Both groups agree that virtual-interviews should be as an option, though this was considerably higher in the medical students (P = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, "travel distance" and "type of medical school" had a significant impact on choosing the virtual-interviews in both groups (p<0.01). Conclusions In-person interviews are favored by both medical students and residents compared to virtual-interview services in normal circumstances. However, both groups agree that programs should offer the option of having virtual-interviews as an available choice. Distance to an

Background: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. Methods: This manuscript reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]; 62 (50, 71) years; 237 (42.2%) women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate-dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, P=0.11). No significant differences were observed between the two groups for other efficacy outcomes, or in the landmark analysis from days 31-90. Overall, there were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24, P=0.33). Conclusion: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.

AMAÇBir-34 yaşındaki hastalarda yaralanma önde gelen mortalite, sakatlık ve sağlık bakım gideri nedenidir. Birinci seviye travma hastalarının %2'si ile %3'ü periferik sinir hasarına (PSH) sahiptir. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEMVeriler Ağustos 1999'dan Şubat 2004'e kadar olan zaman aralığı içinde ICD9-kodlarına göre İran Ulusal Travma Kayıt veritabanından toplandı. Bilgiler demografi, PSH'ye ilişkin mekanizma, seviyeler ve bölgeler ile eşlik eden hasarlar, Kısaltılmış Hasar Skalası, hastanede kalma süresi ve hastane giderlerini içerdi. BULGULAR16,753 hastanın 219'u (%1,3) PSH'li ve 182'si (%83,1) erkek idi. PSH'li hastaların ortalama yaşı, sinir hasarı olmayan hastalarınkine göre daha düşük bulundu (28.6±14.45 ve 33±21,08 yaş; p<0,001). En yaygın PSH nedeni, keskin cisimden kaynaklanan direkt laserasyondu (%61) bunu karayolu trafik kazaları (%22) izledi. Penetran travma, penetran yaralanmalara göre daha yaygındı (%5,6 ve %0,4, p<0,001). En sık PSH, dirsek ile el bölge-sinde görüldü. (%10). Ulnar sinir, en sık olarak yaralanan sinirdi. Ulnar sinir yaralanmasına ilişkin en yaygın alan, ön kol oldu (%15,3). SONUÇKeskin laserasyon ve trafik kazası, genç yaş erkeklerde daha sık olan PSH'ye ilişkin en yüksek oranlara sahiptir. Dirsekten itibaren ele doğru olan açık yaralar, triyajda PSH'ye ilişkin kuşkuyu artırmalıdır. PSH'ye yol açan yaralanmalar nadir olmakla birlikte, bunların sonuçları ve sakatlıkları daha ileri araştırma gerektirmektedir.Anahtar Sözcükler: Ekstremite travması; insidans; periferik sinir yaralanması; karayolu trafik kazaları.

Rationale and Objectives: Cardiac indices can predict disease severity and survival in a multitude of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Herein, we hypothesized that CT-measured cardiac indices are correlated with severity of lung involvement and can predict survival in patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Eighty-seven patients with confirmed COVID-19 who underwent chest CT were enrolled. Cardiac indices including pulmonary artery-to-aorta ratio (PA/A), cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness and EAT density, inferior vena cava diameter, and transverse-to-anteroposterior trachea ratio were measured by non-enhanced CT. Logistic regression and Coxregression analyses evaluated the association of cardiac indices with patients' outcome (death vs discharge). Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between the extent of lung involvement (based on CT score) and cardiac indices. Results: Mean (§SD) age of patients was 54.55 (§15.3) years old; 65.5% were male. Increased CTR (>0.49) was seen in 52.9% of patients and was significantly associated with increased odds and hazard of death (odds ratio [OR] = 12.5, p = 0.005; hazard ratio = 11.4, p = 0.006). PA/A >1 was present in 20.7% of patients and displayed a nonsignificant increase in odds of death (OR = 1.9, p = 0.36). Furthermore, extensive lung involvement was positively associated with elevated CTR and increased PA/A (p = 0.001). Conclusion: CT-measured cardiac indices might have predictive value regarding survival and extent of lung involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and could possibly be used for the risk stratification of these patients and for guiding therapy decision-making. In particular, increased CTR is prevalent in patients with COVID-19 and is a powerful predictor of mortality.