This study aimed to determine if there is an association between ABO blood type and severity of COVID-19 defined by intubation or death as well as ascertain if there is variability in testing positive for COVID-19 between blood types. In a multi-institutional study, all adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 across five hospitals were identified and included from March 6th to April 16th, 2020. Hospitalization, intubation, and death were evaluated for association with blood type. Univariate analysis was conducted using standard techniques and logistic regression was used to determine the independent effect of blood type on intubation and/or death and positive testing. During the study period, there were 7648 patients who received COVID-19 testing throughout the institutions. Of these, 1289 tested positive with a known blood type. A total of 484 (37.5%) were admitted to hospital, 123 (9.5%) were admitted to the ICU, 108 (8.4%) were intubated, 3 (0.2%) required ECMO, and 89 (6.9%) died. Of the 1289 patients who tested positive, 440 (34.2%) were blood type A, 201 (15.6%) were blood type B, 61 (4.7%) were blood type AB, and 587 (45.5%) were blood type O. On univariate analysis, there was no association between blood type and any of the peak inflammatory markers (peak WBC, p = 0.25; peak LDH, p = 0.40; peak ESR, p = 0.16; peak CRP, p = 0.14) nor between blood type and any of the clinical outcomes of severity (admission p = 0.20, ICU admission p = 0.94, intubation p = 0.93, proning while intubated p = 0.58, ECMO p = 0.09, and death p = 0.49). After multivariable analysis, blood type was not independently associated with risk of intubation or death (referent blood type A; blood type B:

Canonical translation initiation in eukaryotes begins with the Eukaryotic Initiation Factor 4F (eIF4F) complex, made up of eIF4E, which recognizes the 7-methylguanosine cap of messenger RNA, and eIF4G, which serves as a scaffold to recruit other translation initiation factors that ultimately assemble the 80S ribosome. Many eukaryotes have secondary EIF4E genes with divergent properties. The model plant Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) encodes two such genes in tandem loci on chromosome 1, EIF4E1B (At1g29550) and EIF4E1C (At1g29590). This work identifies EIF4E1B/EIF4E1C-type genes as a Brassicaceae-specific diverged form of EIF4E. There is little evidence for EIF4E1C gene expression; however, the EIF4E1B gene appears to be expressed at low levels in most tissues, though microarray and RNA Sequencing data support enrichment in reproductive tissue. Purified recombinant eIF4E1b and eIF4E1c proteins retain cap-binding ability and form functional complexes in vitro with eIF4G. The eIF4E1b/eIF4E1c-type proteins support translation in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) but promote translation initiation in vitro at a lower rate compared with eIF4E. Findings from surface plasmon resonance studies indicate that eIF4E1b and eIF4E1c are unlikely to bind eIF4G in vivo when in competition with eIF4E. This study concludes that eIF4E1b/eIF4E1c-type proteins, although bona fide cap-binding proteins, have divergent properties and, based on apparent limited tissue distribution in Arabidopsis, should be considered functionally distinct from the canonical plant eIF4E involved in translation initiation.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has had major implications for the United States health care system. This survey study sought to identify practice changes, to understand current personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and to determine how caring for patients with COVID-19 differs for vascular surgeons practicing in states with high COVID-19 case numbers vs in states with low case numbers.Methods: A 14-question online survey regarding the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular surgeons' current practice was sent to 365 vascular surgeons across the country through REDCap from April 14 to April 21, 2020, with responses closed on April 23, 2020. The survey response was analyzed with descriptive statistics. Further analyses were performed to evaluate whether responses from states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and California) differed from those with lower case numbers (all other states).Results: A total of 121 vascular surgeons responded (30.6%) to the survey. All high-volume states were represented. The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE. The majority of respondents worked in an academic setting (81.5%) and were performing only urgent and emergent cases (80.5%) during preparation for the surge. This did not differ between states with high and low COVID-19 case volumes (P ¼ .285). States with high case volume were less likely to perform a lower extremity intervention for critical limb ischemia (60.8% vs 77.5%; P ¼ .046), but otherwise case types did not differ. Most attending vascular surgeons worked with residents (90.8%) and limited their exposure to procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases (56.0%). Thirty-eight percent of attending vascular surgeons have been redeployed within the hospital to a vascular access service or other service outside of vascular surgery. This was more frequent in states with high case volume compared with low case volume (P ¼ .039). The majority of vascular surgeons are reusing PPE (71.4%) and N95 masks (86.4%), and 21% of vascular surgeons think that they do not have adequate PPE to perform their clinical duties. Conclusions:The initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in reduced elective cases, with primarily only urgent and emergent cases being performed. A minority of vascular surgeons have been redeployed outside of their specialty; however, this is more common among states with high case numbers. Adequate PPE remains an issue for almost a quarter of vascular surgeons who responded to this survey.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a concentrated research effort has been undertaken to elucidate risk factors underlying viral infection, severe illness, and death. Recent studies have investigated the association between blood type and COVID-19 infection. This article aims to comprehensively review current literature and better understand the impact of blood type on viral susceptibility and outcomes.

Objective There are no societal ultrasound (US) guidelines detailing appropriate patient selection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) imaging in patients with COVID-19, nor are there protocol recommendations aimed at decreasing exposure time for US technologists. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific protocol optimization recommendations limiting US technologist exposure while optimizing patient selection. Methods A novel two-pronged algorithm was implemented to limit the DVT US studies on patients with COVID-19 prospectively, which included direct physician communication with the care team and a COVID-19-specific imaging protocol was instated to reduce US technologist exposure. To assess the pretest risk of DVT, the sensitivity and specificity of serum d -dimer in 500-unit increments from 500 to 8000 ng/mL and a receiver operating characteristic curve to assess performance of serum d -dimer in predicting DVT was generated. Rates of DVT, pulmonary embolism, and scan times were compared using t -test and Fisher's exact test (before and after implementation of the protocol). Results Direct physician communication resulted in cancellation or deferral of 72% of requested examinations in COVID-19-positive patients. A serum d -dimer of >4000 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 70% (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.86) for venous thromboembolism. Using the COVID-19-specific protocol, there was a significant (50%) decrease in the scan time ( P < .0001) in comparison with the conventional protocol. Conclusions A direct physician communication policy between imaging physician and referring physician resulted in deferral or cancellation of a majority of requested DVT US examinations. An abbreviated COVID-19-specific imaging protocol significantly decreased exposure time to the US technologist.

No abstract

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS Previous reports investigating the differences in outcomes between proximal aortic clamp locations for open repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were small single centre studies and were unable to determine the optimal location. In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a nationwide clinical registry, it was found that for repair of juxtarenal AAA, there is no difference in outcomes between clamp location above one or both renal arteries, while a supracoeliac clamp is associated with significantly higher 30 day mortality and morbidity. These finding suggests that, when feasible, surgeons should avoid a supracoeliac clamp location.Objective: Open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) requires an aortic cross clamp location above at least one renal artery. This study investigated the impact of clamp location on perioperative outcomes using a United States based nationwide clinical registry. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targetted vascular module was used to identify all elective open juxtarenal AAA repairs (2011e2017). Outcomes were compared between clamping above one vs. above both renal arteries, and above one or both renal arteries vs. supracoeliac clamping. The primary outcome was 30 day mortality and secondary outcomes included post-operative renal dysfunction (creatinine increase 177 mmol/L or new dialysis) and unplanned re-operations. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to perform risk adjusted analyses. Results: A total of 615 repairs were identified, with a clamp location above one renal artery in 42%, above both renal arteries in 40%, and supracoeliac in 18% of cases. Procedures with a clamp location above one vs. above both renal arteries showed no difference in mortality (3.5% vs. 2.1%, p ¼ .34) or renal dysfunction (6.9% vs. 4.9%, p ¼ .34). In contrast, supracoeliac clamping compared with clamping above one or both renal arteries was associated with a higher mortality rate (8.0% vs. 2.8%, p ¼ .023), renal dysfunction (12% vs. 6.0%, p ¼ .017), and unplanned re-operations (24% vs. 10%, p < .001). In the multivariable adjusted models, outcomes were similar between clamping above both vs. above one renal artery, while supracoeliac clamping vs. clamping above one or both renal arteries was associated with higher mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.4; 95% CI: 1.3e8.8; p ¼ .013) and unplanned re-operation (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.4e4.1; p ¼ .002). Conclusion:Although there is no difference between clamping above one vs. both renal arteries during open juxtarenal AAA repair, a supracoeliac clamp location is associated with worse peri-operative outcomes. Surgeons should avoid supracoeliac clamping when clamping above one or both renal arteries is technically possible.

No abstract