Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: Initial Experience at a Tertiary Care Center.

OBJECTIVE: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia require frequent glucose monitoring, usually performed with glucometers. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are common in the outpatient setting but not yet approved for hospital use. We evaluated CGM accuracy, safety for insulin dosing, and CGM clinical reliability in 20 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and hyperglycemia. METHODS: Study patients were fitted with a remotely monitored CGM. CGM values were evaluated against glucometer readings. The CGM sensor calibration was performed if necessary. CGM values were used to dose insulin, without glucometer confirmation. RESULTS: CGM accuracy against glucometer, expressed as mean absolute relative difference (MARD), was calculated using 812 paired glucometer-CGM values. The aggregate MARD was 10.4%. For time in range and grades 1 and 2 hyperglycemia, MARD was 11.4%, 9.4%, and 9.1%, respectively, with a small variation between medical floors and intensive care units. There was no MARD correlation with mean arterial blood pressure levels, oxygen saturation, daily hemoglobin levels, and glomerular filtration rates. CGM clinical reliability was high, with 99.7% of the CGM values falling within the "safe" zones of Clarke error grid. After CGM placement, the frequency of glucometer measurements decreased from 5 to 3 and then 2 per day, reducing nurse presence in patient rooms and limiting viral exposure. CONCLUSION: With twice daily, on-demand calibration, the inpatient CGM use was safe for insulin dosing, decreasing the frequency of glucometer fingersticks. For glucose levels >70 mg/dL, CGMs showed adequate accuracy, without interference from vital and laboratory values.

Simulation Method for Testing Aerosol Mitigation Strategies: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Frontline health care workers who perform potentially aerosol-generating procedures, such as endotracheal intubations, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 may be at an increased risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. To continue to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, minimizing exposure is paramount. Using simulation, we devised a testing method to evaluate devices that may mitigate the spread of aerosol and droplet-sized particles. METHODS: In this prospective single-center study, participants intubated a manikin 3 times using standard personal protective equipment, once with no barrier device, once with an acrylic box, and once with a modified horizontal drape. The micrometer-sized particle count, generated by a nebulization model, was recorded before and after each intubation. The first-pass intubation rate and time to intubation were recorded. Each operator completed a postsimulation survey about their experience using the barrier devices. RESULTS: Thirty airway proceduralists completed the simulation and survey. There was no significant difference in particle counts (aerosols or droplets) or first-pass intubation, but the horizontal drape was found to significantly increase intubation time (P = 0.01). Most participants preferred the drape over the acrylic box or no barrier device. CONCLUSIONS: The acrylic box and plastic drape did not mitigate particle spread. However, our testing method can be used to test barrier designs using negative pressure or other mitigation strategies for particle spread.

Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Induced COVID-19 on Fixed Operating Room Times in Urologic Operations.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, on operating room (OR) efficiency for urologic procedures using the concept of fixed OR times. Patients and Methods: Over a 24-month period, urology OR data were prospectively collected. Operations were divided into fixed and variable time points. The fixed OR times were in-roomw to anesthesia-release time, anesthesia-release to cut time, in-room to cut time, and close to wheels-out time. Data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were pre-COVID-19 data, and data from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were post-COVID-19 data. Operations were grouped into endoscopic, implant, major open, and robotic-assisted cases. In the post-COVID-19 era, all patients had a negative polymerase chain reaction test result within 48 hours of operation. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the fixed OR times between the pre- and post-COVID-19 eras. Results: A total of 3189 procedures were evaluated: 2058 endoscopic operations (1124 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 934 in the post-COVID-19 era), 343 implant procedures (192 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 151 in the post-COVID-19 era), 222 major open procedures (119 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 103 in the post-COVID-19 era), and 566 robotic-assisted procedures (338 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 228 in the post-COVID-19 era). There were no fixed OR times in any of the examined groups that were negatively impacted by COVID-19. The percentage of the total OR time occupied by fixed OR variables in the pre-COVID-19 era was 40.6% for endoscopic operations, 41.1% for implant procedures, 29.8% for major open procedures, and 21.8% for robotic-assisted procedures. Conclusion: A substantial portion of the total OR time includes fixed time points. Furthermore, COVID-19 did not have a negative impact on fixed OR times in a negative testing environment. Urologic OR efficiency should be maintained in the post-COVID-19 era.