Faculty Bibliography

Background: Zinc impairs replication of RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-1, and may be effective against SARS-CoV-2. However, to achieve adequate intracellular zinc levels, administration with an ionophore, which increases intracellular zinc levels, may be necessary. We evaluated the impact of zinc with an ionophore (Zn+ionophore) on COVID-19 in-hospital mortality rates. Methods: A multicenter cohort study was conducted of 3,473 adult hospitalized patients with reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) positive SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to four New York City hospitals between March 10 through May 20, 2020. Exclusion criteria were: death or discharge within 24h, comfort-care status, clinical trial enrollment, treatment with an IL-6 inhibitor or remdesivir. Patients who received Zn+ionophore were compared to patients who did not using multivariable time-dependent cox proportional hazards models for time to in-hospital death adjusting for confounders including age, sex, race, BMI, diabetes, week of admission, hospital location, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, intubation, acute renal failure, neurological events, treatment with corticosteroids, azithromycin or lopinavir/ritonavir and the propensity score of receiving Zn+ionophore. A sensitivity analysis was performed using a propensity score-matched cohort of patients who did or did not receive Zn+ionophore matched by age, sex and ventilator status. Results: Among 3,473 patients (median age 64, 1947 [56%] male, 522 [15%] ventilated, 545[16%] died), 1,006 (29%) received Zn+ionophore. Zn+ionophore was associated with a 24% reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (12% of those who received Zn+ionophore died versus 17% who did not; adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.96, P=0.023). More patients who received Zn+ionophore were discharged home (72% Zn+ionophore vs 67% no Zn+ionophore, P=0.003) Neither Zn nor the ionophore alone were associated with decreased mortality rates. Propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis (N=1356) validated these results (Zn+ionophore aHR for mortality 0.63, 95%CI 0.44-0.91, P=0.015). There were no significant interactions for Zn+ionophore with other COVID-19 specific medications. Conclusions: Zinc with an ionophore was associated with increased rates of discharge home and a 24% reduced risk of in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients, while neither zinc alone nor the ionophore alone reduced mortality. Further randomized trials are warranted.

BACKGROUND:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the inpatient population and is considered a leading preventable cause of death among inpatients. Neurosurgical inpatients are of particular interest because of the greater rates of immobility, steroid use, and potential consequences of postoperative hemorrhage. A consensus protocol for VTE screening in this population has not yet been developed, and institutional protocols vary widely. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography (VDUS) usage at our institution and applied this information to the development of a neurosurgery department protocol, with consideration of high-risk patient risk factors and indications for VDUS ordering. We then implemented this protocol, which consisted of preoperative screening of patients at high risk of VTE and limited postoperative surveillance, for a 6-month period and compared VDUS usage and VTE occurrence. RESULTS:Preoperative VDUS screening before nonemergent neurosurgical procedures in high-risk patients with active cancer, an inability to ambulate, or a history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) identified proximal DVTs that were then treated. Postoperative routine surveillance VDUS scans only diagnosed incidental isolated calf DVT for which no clinically relevant sequelae occurred. Overall, postoperative surveillance VDUS usage decreased significantly (66.9% vs. 13.5%; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings lend support to preoperative screening of high-risk patients and suggest that routine postoperative VDUS surveillance of asymptomatic patients is unnecessary.

Background/UNASSIGNED:There remains no consensus on the optimal primary intervention for subdural hematoma (SDH). Although historically favored, craniotomy carries substantial morbidity and incurs significant costs. Contrastingly, the subdural evacuating port system (SEPS) is a minimally invasive bedside procedure. We assessed the benefits of SEPS over traditional craniotomy for SDH evacuation. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A single-center retrospective cohort study of SDH patients receiving craniotomy or SEPS between 2012 and 2017 was performed. Information regarding demographics, medical history, presentation, surgical outcomes, cost, and complications was collected. Pre- and postoperative hematoma volumes were calculated using 3D image segmentation using Vitrea software. Multivariate regression models were employed to assess the influence of intervention choice. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 1.000). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:In this retrospective cohort, SEPS was noninferior to craniotomy at reducing SDH hematoma volume. The SEPS procedure was also associated with decreased length of stay hospitalization costs, and postoperative seizures and demonstrated a comparable recurrence rate to craniotomy for chronic SDH in particular.