Preoperative Anxiety among Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Surgeries at a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study during the Era of COVID-19 Vaccination.

Anxiety in the perioperative period has significant impact on both the flow of surgery and the post-operative recovery process. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of preoperative anxiety among adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures at a tertiary teaching hospital and the effect of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on preoperative anxiety. We used the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) to assess patients' anxiety toward surgery and their need for more information. Patients with APAIS about anesthesia and surgery (APAIS-A-T) total score <10 were considered as the low preoperative anxiety group, while patients with APAIS-A-T ≥11 were considered as the high preoperative anxiety group. The overall APAIS-A-T score of the 794 included patients was 8.5 ± 4.5. The mean APAIS-A-T score was 7.0 ± 3.8 among males and 9.6 ± 4.6 among female patients (p < 0.001). The APAIS-A-T score for those who had previously underwent surgery under anesthesia was 8.3 ± 4.4, compared to 9.5 ± 4.8 for those who had not (p = 0.002). No significant difference was found between those with a previous history of COVID-19 and those without (p = 0.105), nor between those who were vaccinated and those who were not (p = 0.550). Sixty-four (26.8%) highly anxious patients were afraid of becoming infected with COVID-19 during their hospital stay (p = 0.009). This fear of COVID-19 in-hospital transmission made 19 (7.9%) highly anxious patients and 36 (4.5%) of the total sample hesitant to undergo this surgery (p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 30.1% of patients had high preoperative anxiety, with fear of pain after surgery being the most common factor related to anxiety on the day of surgery. Controlling the spread of COVID-19 can play a crucial role in decreasing preoperative anxiety during this pandemic.

Preparedness of Frontline Doctors in Jordan Healthcare Facilities to COVID-19 Outbreak.

The number of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019) cases in Jordan is rising rapidly. A serious threat to the healthcare system appears on the horizon. Our study aims to evaluate preparedness of Jordanian frontline doctors to the worsening scenario. It has a questionnaire-based cross-sectional structure. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate preparedness according to knowledge about virus transmission and protective measures, adherence to protection guidelines, and psychological impacts affecting doctors. Institutional factors affecting doctors' readiness like adopting approach protocols and making protection equipment available were investigated; 308 doctors from different healthcare facilities participated (response rate: 53.9%). Approximately 25% of doctors (n = 77) previously took care of COVID-19 patients, and 173 (56.2%) have institutional COVID-19 approach protocols. Only 57 doctors (18.5%) reported all PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) available. The self-reported score of preparedness to deal with COVID-19 patients was 4.9 ± 2.4. Doctors having institutional protocols for dealing with COVID-19 cases and those with sustained availability of PPE reported higher scores of preparedness (5.5 ± 2.3 and 6.2 ± 2.1 with p < 0.001, respectively). Correlations with knowledge score, adherence to PPE score, and psychological impacts were investigated. The study revealed multiple challenges and insufficiencies that can affect frontline doctors' preparedness. Policy makers are urged to take these findings into consideration and to act promptly.

Perioperative Outcomes in COVID-19 Obstetric Patients Undergoing Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) adds more challenges to the perioperative management of parturients. The aim of this study is to examine perioperative adverse events and hemodynamic stability among COVID-19 positive parturients undergoing spinal anesthesia. This prospective observational investigation was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Jordan between January and June 2021, during which 31 COVID-19 positive parturients were identified. Each COVID-19 positive parturient was matched with a COVID-19 negative parturient who received anesthesia under similar operating conditions as a control group. Of the 31 COVID-19 patients, 22 (71%) were otherwise medically free, 8 (25.8%) were emergency cesarean sections. The sensory level of spinal block after 10 min was T8 (T6-T10) among COVID-19 positive group, compared to T4 (T4-T6) among control group (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in heart rate, SBP, DBP, and MAP intraoperatively (p > 0.05). Twelve (36.4%) neonates born to COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to NICU, compared to four (11.8%) among control group (p = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications. In conclusion, spinal anesthesia is considered a safe anesthetic technique in COVID-19 parturients, and therefore it is the anesthetic method of choice for cesarean deliveries among COVID-19 patients.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm: A Comparative Study on Post-Vaccination Antibody Titers.

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25-196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11-0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

Qualitative Assessment of Early Adverse Effects of Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm COVID-19 Vaccines by Telephone Interviews.

Vaccines are considered the best approach for countering the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we compared early side effects associated with vaccination with the Sinopharm and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines. Participants of this observational cohort were interviewed based on semi-structured telephone interviews, with enquiries about side effects that developed after vaccination with each dose of these vaccines. Overall, 1004 participants were enrolled, of which 51.1% received Sinopharm vaccine and 48.9% received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. After the first dose, 46.3% of participants had an adverse reaction, with injection site pain most commonly being reported (33.2%). Participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had significantly higher frequencies of all types of adverse reactions (p < 0.01), with no significant differences in the duration of adverse reactions between the two vaccines. Regarding the second dose, 48.6% of participants had adverse reactions, with injection site pain being most commonly reported (29%). Those who received the Pfizer vaccine reported higher frequencies of all adverse reactions (p < 0.01). However, a longer duration of adverse reactions was seen among Sinopharm vaccine recipients as compared to Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients (p = 0.01). In conclusion, early adverse effects are reported following all types of vaccines but these are more likely to be encountered following the administration of new-generation vaccines. These side effects are mostly mild and treatable.

Hesitancy towards COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.

Vaccination is the most promising strategy to counter the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine hesitancy is a serious global phenomenon, and therefore the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the effect of educational background, work field, and social media on attitudes towards vaccination in Jordan. We compared between medical personnel who were in direct contact with patients and non-medical individuals at Jordan University Hospital in terms of demographics, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, rumors received via social media, their trust in these vaccines, and the encouraging factors for vaccination. 646 individuals were enrolled in this study, of which 287 (44.4%) were from medical field, and 359 (55.6%) from non-medical field. 226 (35%) were planning to take the vaccine once available, with a positive response from 131 (45.6%) medical field workers, compared to 94 (26.2%) non-medical individuals (p < 0.001). The social media rumor that was believed the most was the unsafety of these vaccines (n = 283; 43.8%). Only 163 (56.8%) of medical persons did not believe any of the circulated rumors, compared to 126 (35.1%) of non-medical persons (p < 0.001). The effect of medical personnel advice (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.026) and social media (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.41; p = 0.012) were significantly associated with the willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine once available. In conclusion, medical personnel and social media play a crucial role in increasing the society's inclination towards vaccination by providing the community with updated evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines as an efficient medical countermeasure and by correcting the previously spread misinformation.