Risk of Cardiovascular Events After COVID-19.

We aimed to determine absolute and relative risks of either symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for late cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality. We conducted a retrospective double cohort study of patients with either symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19+ cohort) and its documented absence (COVID-19- cohort). The study investigators drew a simple random sample of records from all patients under the Oregon Health & Science University Healthcare (n = 65,585), with available COVID-19 test results, performed March 1, 2020 to September 13, 2020. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years and no established Oregon Health & Science University care. The primary outcome was a composite of CV morbidity and mortality. All-cause mortality was the secondary outcome. The study population included 1,355 patients (mean age 48.7 ± 20.5 years; 770 women [57%], 977 White non-Hispanic [72%]; 1,072 ensured [79%]; 563 with CV disease history [42%]). During a median 6 months at risk, the primary composite outcome was observed in 38 of 319 patients who were COVID-19+ (12%) and 65 of 1,036 patients who were COVID-19- (6%). In the Cox regression, adjusted for demographics, health insurance, and reason for COVID-19 testing, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with the risk for primary composite outcome (hazard ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.78, p = 0.029). Inverse probability-weighted estimation, conditioned for 31 covariates, showed that for every patient who was COVID-19+, the average time to all-cause death was 65.5 days less than when all these patients were COVID-19-: average treatment effect on the treated -65.5 (95% confidence interval -125.4 to -5.61) days, p = 0.032. In conclusion, either symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased risk for late CV outcomes and has a causal effect on all-cause mortality in a late post-COVID-19 period.

Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, requiring mask reuse or improvisation. We provide a review of medical-grade facial protection (surgical masks, N95 respirators and face shields) for healthcare workers, the safety and efficacy of decontamination methods, and the utility of alternative strategies in emergency shortages or resource-scarce settings. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of PubMed and grey literature related to facial protection and potential adaptation strategies in the setting of PPE shortages (January 2000 to March 2020). Limitations included few COVID-19-specific studies and exclusion of non-English language articles. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence based on relevant healthcare settings to increase practical utility in decision-making. RESULTS: We retrieved 5462 peer-reviewed articles and 41 grey literature records. In total, we included 67 records which met inclusion criteria. Compared with surgical masks, N95 respirators perform better in laboratory testing, may provide superior protection in inpatient settings and perform equivalently in outpatient settings. Surgical mask and N95 respirator conservation strategies include extended use, reuse or decontamination, but these strategies may result in inferior protection. Limited evidence suggests that reused and improvised masks should be used when medical-grade protection is unavailable. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to critical shortages of medical-grade PPE. Alternative forms of facial protection offer inferior protection. More robust evidence is required on different types of medical-grade facial protection. As research on COVID-19 advances, investigators should continue to examine the impact on alternatives of medical-grade facial protection.