To Use or Not to Use: Nepal Samvat, the National Era of Nepal

This paper presents the importance of Nepal Samvat in Nepalese cultural life and compares it with Vikram Samvat, the official calendar of Nepal. Presenting a discussion on eras prevalent in Nepal, this paper examines the significance of the Nepal Government’s recent recognition of Nepal Samvat as the national calendar of Nepal. It presents a historical and cultural overview of the different eras and calendars that are in use in Nepal. It attempts to demonstrate a continuous historical legitimacy of Nepal Samvat, in contrast with Vikram Samvat, which is shown to be a fairly recent imposition associated with the Rana period, from 1903 onward. This article argues against any claims that the implementation of Nepal Samvat as an official calendar is impractical. In addition, I address the following issues: (1) how to adapt a lunar calendar to practical use, (2) how to coordinate it with governmental and business interests, and (3) how to coordinate it with external calendars (e.g. the Common Era or ‘Christian’ calendar)

CSF rhinorrhoea after endonasal intervention to the skull base (CRANIAL): A multicentre prospective observational study

ObjectiveDespite progress in endonasal skull-base neurosurgery, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea remains common and significant. The CRANIAL study sought to determine 1) the scope of skull-base repair methods used, and 2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in the endonasal transsphenoidal approach (TSA) and the expanded endonasal approach (EEA) for skull-base tumors.MethodsA prospective observational cohort study of 30 centres performing endonasal skull-base neurosurgery in the UK and Ireland (representing 91% of adult units). Patients were identified for 6 months and followed up for 6 months. Data collection and analysis was guided by our published protocol and pilot studies. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis.ResultsA total of 866 patients were included - 726 TSA (84%) and 140 EEA (16%). There was significant heterogeneity in repair protocols across centres. In TSA cases, nasal packing (519/726, 72%), tissue glues (474/726, 65%) and hemostatic agents (439/726, 61%) were the most common skull base repair techniques. Comparatively, pedicled flaps (90/140, 64%), CSF diversion (38/140, 27%), buttresses (17/140, 12%) and gasket sealing (11/140, 9%) were more commonly used in EEA cases. CSF rhinorrhoea (biochemically confirmed or requiring re-operation) occurred in 3.9% of TSA (28/726) and 7.1% of EEA (10/140) cases. A significant number of patients with CSF rhinorrhoea (15/38, 39%) occurred when no intraoperative CSF leak was reported. On multivariate analysis, there may be marginal benefits with using tissue glues in TSA (OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.7, p&amp;lt;0.01), but no other technique reached significance. There was evidence that certain characteristics make CSF rhinorrhoea more likely – such as previous endonasal surgery and the presence of intraoperative CSF leak.ConclusionsThere is a wide range of skull base repair techniques used across centres. Overall, CSF rhinorrhoea rates across the UK and Ireland are lower than generally reported in the literature. A large proportion of postoperative leaks occurred in the context of occult intraoperative CSF leaks, and decisions for universal sellar repairs should consider the risks and cost-effectiveness of repair strategies. Future work could include longer-term, higher-volume studies, such as a registry; and high-quality interventional studies.</jats:sec

Characteristics and outcomes of an international cohort of 600 000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background: We describe demographic features, treatments and clinical outcomes in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 cohort, one of the world’s largest international, standardized data sets concerning hospitalized patients. Methods: The data set analysed includes COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 2020 and January 2022 in 52 countries. We investigated how symptoms on admission, co-morbidities, risk factors and treatments varied by age, sex and other characteristics. We used Cox regression models to investigate associations between demographics, symptoms, co-morbidities and other factors with risk of death, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Results: Data were available for 689 572 patients with laboratory-confirmed (91.1%) or clinically diagnosed (8.9%) SARS-CoV-2 infection from 52 countries. Age [adjusted hazard ratio per 10 years 1.49 (95% CI 1.48, 1.49)] and male sex [1.23 (1.21, 1.24)] were associated with a higher risk of death. Rates of admission to an ICU and use of IMV increased with age up to age 60 years then dropped. Symptoms, co-morbidities and treatments varied by age and had varied associations with clinical outcomes. The case-fatality ratio varied by country partly due to differences in the clinical characteristics of recruited patients and was on average 21.5%. Conclusions: Age was the strongest determinant of risk of death, with a ~30-fold difference between the oldest and youngest groups; each of the co-morbidities included was associated with up to an almost 2-fold increase in risk. Smoking and obesity were also associated with a higher risk of death. The size of our international database and the standardized data collection method make this study a comprehensive international description of COVID-19 clinical features. Our findings may inform strategies that involve prioritization of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who have a higher risk of death

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable