10 research outputs found

    Leibniz and the Ground of Possibility

    Get PDF

    Orbital fractures and concurrent ocular injury in a New Zealand tertiary centre

    Get PDF
    BackgroundOrbital fractures are a common presentation to acute care and carry an associated risk of ocular injury, however, previous research has not investigated injury rates by fracture category. These patients are frequently assessed by non-ophthalmic clinicians, however, limited data exists regarding referral patterns and how this impacts recorded injury rates (1–3).MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of all orbital fractures presenting to a tertiary hospital in Christchurch, New Zealand between March 2019 and March 2021. Data including mechanism of injury, fracture type, demographic characteristics, and associated ocular injury were recorded.Results284 patients with orbital fractures were identified. 41% of patients had isolated wall fractures, while 59% had complex orbitofacial fractures. Fractures were more common in males, and occurred more frequently in young individuals. The most common mechanism of injury was interpersonal violence (32%), followed by falls (23%). 41% of patients were reviewed by ophthalmology (n = 118). Of those, 33% had an associated ocular injury. Severe ocular injury (defined as vision threatening, requiring globe surgery or acute lateral canthotomy and cantholysis) occurred in 4.9% of those with formal ophthalmic review. 0.7% of patients required intraocular surgery or lateral canthotomy due to their orbital fracture.ConclusionOrbital fractures have a high rate of concurrent ocular injury in our study population, though rates of subsequent intraocular surgery are low. There was no significant difference in injury rates between isolated and complex fracture categories. Vision-threatening ocular injury occurred in 4.9% of fractures

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    Neuro-ophthalmic Manifestations of Cerebellar Disease

    No full text
    corecore