Hysteroscopic Removal of Intrauterine Device in Pregnancy: A Scoping Review to Guide Personalized Care

Background and objectives: Pregnancies that occur with an intrauterine device (IUD) in situ are at increased risk for developing severe conditions which may affect the fetus and the mother. The incidence of such adverse consequences significantly drops after device removal. A scoping review of the literature was performed to highlight the risks, benefits, and outcomes of hysteroscopic removal of intrauterine devices in early pregnancy. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. The review included all reports from 1990 to October 2022. The research strategy adopted included different combinations of the following terms: (“hysteroscopy”) AND (“pregnancy”) AND (“intrauterine device” or “IUD”) AND (“intrauterine system” or “IUS”). A scoping review of the hysteroscopic removal of IUDs during pregnancy was performed. All studies identified were listed by citation, title, authors, and abstract. Duplicates were identified by an independent manual screening performed by two researchers and then removed. For the eligibility process, two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all non-duplicated papers and excluded those not pertinent to the topic. Results: PRISMA guidelines were followed. Nine manuscripts were detected, accounting for 153 patients. Most IUD removals occurred during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most of the time, the procedure was safe and without consequences. Conclusions: This review highlights the safety and efficacy of operative hysteroscopy as a method of IUD removal in early pregnancy. We recommend using a 3 to 5 mm hysteroscope, avoiding cervical dilation, and maintaining low infusion pressure during the procedure to avoid potential damage to the gestational sac and IUD fragment displacement. Heating the distension media to 30 ◦C should be considered

Placental Chorangiocarcinoma a Specific Histological Pattern of Uncertain Incidence and Clinical Impact: Systematic Review of the Literature

Chorangiocarcinoma is a very rare and misdiagnosed placental neoplasm. The unique morphologic features of the lesion distinguish it from other trophoblastic tumors and vascular abnormalities. We present a systematic review of the literature to provide clarity on chorangiocarcinoma entity and biology. A literature search was carried out in December 2022 using the keywords "Placental chorangiocarcinoma", "Chorangioma", "Placenta", and "Throphoblast proliferation". Articles published from 1988 to 2022 were obtained from Scopus, Google Scholar, and PUBMED. In our review, we examined maternal age, gestational age at the time of delivery, parity, type of pregnancy, placental weight, ultrasound features of the placenta, macroscopic examination and tumor size, microscopic examination, immunostaining, maternal beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, fetal and maternal outcome. Eight manuscripts were detected. They are all case reports. The macroscopic characteristics of the lesions were represented by the presence of a grey-yellow-white color well-demarcated round nodule. Microscopically, all the authors described typical aspects of malignancy as a high rate of mitosis, nuclear atypia and necrotic areas. In some cases, the presence of AE1/AE3 cytoplasmic positivity, p63 nuclear staining, and beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (BHCG) were reported. A good fetal outcome was reported in all cases of newborns with normal birth weight, except one with fetal growth restriction. Maternal outcome was good in all cases except one with maternal lung metastasis three months after delivery. The clinical course has probably underestimated the real incidence of the pathology. Only greater knowledge of its histology and its clinical course will allow us to evaluate the real prevalence of the disease

A comprehensive study on the effect of pilot injection, EGR rate, IMEP and biodiesel characteristics on a CRDI diesel engine

Although many studies have concerned effect of different kind of biodiesel fuel on engine, there are no information about the comparison between different biodiesels in a comprehensive study and with consideration of pilot injection and EGR system. Therefore, the aim of this study is to have a comprehensive investigation of the effect of pilot injection timing and EGR system, as common ways to reduce engine emissions, on engine combustion, emissions and performance while using of different kind of the biodiesel. The brassica, cardoon, coffee, waste cooking oil biodiesels and standard diesel fuels were evaluated fuels. However, the results of the study depicted that different characteristics of the considered fuels had changed the engine response to variation of injection strategy and EGR application. The maximum reduction of combustion duration compare to diesel fuel (17.7%) was related to coffee biodiesel. Moreover, Coffee biodiesel has lowest pressure rise rate. On the other hand, cardoon had shortest ignition delay and highest combustion temperature. In addition, maximum retardation of combustion position was for brassica biodiesel fuel (19.07%). Although the NOx emission has decreased due to application of EGR (up to 86%) and pilot injection (up to 29.3%), high EGR rate in high IMEP has changed the combustion quality due to sewer changes in the combustion quality. In this condition, CO and THC emission increased severely. Higher viscosity and lower oxygen content of the coffee and cardoon biodiesel than diesel fuel decreased combustion quality and caused the higher THC, CO and soot emissions and lower NOx emissions than brassica and WCO biodiesel fuels in higher EGR rates and IMEPs. It can be stated that pilot injection and EGR are two parameters which are effective significantly on the engine characteristics and the adjusting of these parameters should be done properly specially according to the used fuel properties

Higgs-mediated FCNCs: Natural Flavour Conservation vs. Minimal Flavour Violation

We compare the effectiveness of two hypotheses, Natural Flavour Conservation (NFC) and Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV), in suppressing the strength of flavour-changing neutral-currents (FCNCs) in models with more than one Higgs doublet. We show that the MFV hypothesis, in its general formulation, is more stable in suppressing FCNCs than the hypothesis of NFC alone when quantum corrections are taken into account. The phenomenological implications of the two scenarios are discussed analysing meson-antimeson mixing observables and the rare decays B -> mu+ mu-. We demonstrate that, introducing flavour-blind CP phases, two-Higgs doublet models respecting the MFV hypothesis can accommodate a large CP-violating phase in Bs mixing, as hinted by CDF and D0 data and, without extra free parameters, soften significantly in a correlated manner the observed anomaly in the relation between epsilon_K and S_psi_K.Comment: 27 pages, 4 figures. v3: minor modifications (typos corrected and few refs. added), conclusions unchanged; journal versio

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council