McGwin, Gerald

Abstract Background Invasive fungal infections have been described throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Cryptococcal disease after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been reported in several isolated case reports and 1 larger case series. We sought to describe cryptococcal infections following SARS-CoV-2 through establishing a database to investigate underlying risk factors, disease manifestations, and outcomes. Methods We created a crowdsourced call for cases solicited through the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Emerging Infectious Diseases Network, and infectious diseases Twitter groups. Data were collected in a web-based and secure REDCap survey without personal identifiers. Results Sixty-nine cases were identified and submitted by 29 separate institutional sites. Cryptococcosis was diagnosed a median of 22 days (interquartile range, 9–42 days) after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mortality among those with available follow-up was 72% (26/36) for the immunocompetent group and 48% (15/31) for the immunocompromised group (likelihood ratio, 4.01; P = .045). We observed a correlation between disease manifestation (central nervous system infection, proven/probable disseminated disease, and respiratory) and mortality (P = .002). Conclusions The mortality rate of 59% for patients with cryptococcosis following SARS-CoV-2 is higher than that of modern Cryptococcus cohorts. There was an association between immunocompromised status and cryptococcal disease manifestations as well as mortality. Moreover, our series emphasizes the need for clinical and laboratory assessment of opportunistic infections beyond 30 days when concerning symptoms develop.

Introduction: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with treatment failure occurring in 12% to 28% after 2-stage revision. It is vital to identify diagnostic tools indicative of persistent infection or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies published before October 3, 2021, which evaluated the utility of serum/plasma biomarkers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], fibrinogen, D-dimer), synovial biomarkers (white blood cell [WBC] count, neutrophil percentage [PMN %], alpha-defensin [AD], leukocyte esterase [LE]), tissue frozen section, tissue culture, synovial fluid culture, or sonicated spacer fluid culture indicative of persistent infection before the second stage of 2-stage revision for PJI or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. Results: A total of 47 studies including 6,605 diagnostic tests among 3,781 2-stage revisions for PJI were analyzed. Among those cases, 723 (19.1%) experienced persistent infection or treatment failure. Synovial LE (sensitivity 0.25 [0.10-0.47], specificity 0.99 [0.93-1.00], positive likelihood ratio 14.0 [1.45-135.58]) and serum IL-6 (sensitivity 0.52 [0.33-0.70], specificity 0.92 [0.85-0.96], positive likelihood ratio 7.90 [0.86-72.61]) had the highest diagnostic accuracy. However, no biomarker was associated with a clinically useful negative likelihood ratio. In subgroup analysis, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP had limited utility for detecting persistent infection before reimplantation (positive likelihood ratios ranging 2.33-3.74; negative likelihood ratios ranging 0.31-0.9) and no utility for predicting failure after the second stage of 2-stage revision. Conclusions: Synovial WBC count, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP have modest sensitivity and specificity for predicting persistent infection during the second stage of 2-stage revision, suggesting some combination of these diagnostic tests might be useful before reimplantation. No biomarker or culture accurately predicted treatment failure after reimplantation. Level of Evidence: Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to analyze the relationship of percentage of surgical overlap with patient outcomes to determine if a detrimental level of overlap exists. Background: Overlapping surgery is defined as 1 attending physician supervising 2 or more operative cases simultaneously, without the critical portions of the cases occurring concurrently. To date, no study has examined the relationship of percent overlap, or the percentage of 1 case that is spent overlapping with another, to outcomes, efficiency, safety, and complications. Methods: This study is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a large tertiary referral center. The primary outcomes of interest included operative duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and patient safety indicators (PSIs). The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to evaluate the outcomes of interest. P values of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 87,426 cases were included in this study. There were 62,332 cases without overlap (Group 0), 10,514 cases with 1% to 25% overlap (Group 1), 5303 cases with 26% to 50% overlap (Group 2), 4296 cases with 51% to 75% overlap (Group 3), and 4981 cases with >75% overlap (Group 4). In-hospital mortality decreased as overlap increased (P trend<0.0001). Operative time increased with increasing overlap (P trend<0.0001) while readmission rates showed no statistical significance between groups (P trend=0.5078). Rates of PSIs were lower for Groups 1, 2, and 3 (1.69%, 2.01%, and 2.08%) when compared to Group 0 (2.24%). Group 4 had the highest rate of PSIs at 2.35% (P=0.0086). Conclusion: Overlapping surgery was shown to have reduced in-hospital mortality and similar PSI and readmission rates when compared to nonoverlapping cases. Operative time was shown to increase in overlapping surgeries when compared to nonoverlapping surgeries. The results from this study indicate that the percentage of surgical overlap does not detrimentally affect most patient outcomes, especially with overlap of <75%.