1. |
|
|
2. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
3. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
4. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- Khatri, C, et al.
(author)
-
Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study
- 2021
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:11, s. e050830-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.SettingProspective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.ParticipantsPatients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).Primary outcome30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.ResultsThis study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.Trial registration numberNCT04323644
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
- Abdalla, H., et al.
(author)
-
TeV Emission of Galactic Plane Sources with HAWC and HESS
- 2021
-
In: Astrophysical Journal. - : Institute of Physics Publishing (IOPP). - 0004-637X .- 1538-4357. ; 917:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The High Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) observatory and the High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) are two leading instruments in the ground-based very-high-energy gamma-ray domain. HAWC employs the water Cherenkov detection (WCD) technique, while H.E.S.S. is an array of Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs). The two facilities therefore differ in multiple aspects, including their observation strategy, the size of their field of view, and their angular resolution, leading to different analysis approaches. Until now, it has been unclear if the results of observations by both types of instruments are consistent: several of the recently discovered HAWC sources have been followed up by IACTs, resulting in a confirmed detection only in a minority of cases. With this paper, we go further and try to resolve the tensions between previous results by performing a new analysis of the H.E.S.S. Galactic plane survey data, applying an analysis technique comparable between H.E.S.S. and HAWC. Events above 1 TeV are selected for both data sets, the point-spread function of H.E.S.S. is broadened to approach that of HAWC, and a similar background estimation method is used. This is the first detailed comparison of the Galactic plane observed by both instruments. H.E.S.S. can confirm the gamma-ray emission of four HAWC sources among seven previously undetected by IACTs, while the three others have measured fluxes below the sensitivity of the H.E.S.S. data set. Remaining differences in the overall gamma-ray flux can be explained by the systematic uncertainties. Therefore, we confirm a consistent view of the gamma-ray sky between WCD and IACT techniques.
|
|