Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Emerg Radiol ; 29(4): 625-629, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1930437

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This retrospective review examines the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) during computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) exams performed in the emergency room setting of a tertiary care center over dominant periods of the ancestral, Delta, and Omicron variants of COVID-19. MATERIALS/METHODS: Demographic information, patient comorbidities and risk factors, vaccination status, and COVID-19 infection status were collected from patient's charts. Incidence of PE in COVID positive patients was compared between variant waves. Subgroup analysis of vaccination effect was performed. RESULTS: CTPA was ordered in 18.3% of COVID-19 positive patients during the ancestral variant period, 18.3% during the Delta period and 17.3% during the Omicron wave. PE was seen in 15.0% of the ancestral COVID-19 variant cohort, 10.6% in the Delta COVID cohort and 9.23% of the Omicron cohort, reflecting a 41% and 60% increased risk of PE with ancestral variants compared to Delta and Omicron periods respectively. The study however was underpowered and the difference in rate of PE did not reach statistically significance (p = 0.43 and p = 0.22). Unvaccinated patients had an 2.75-fold increased risk of COVID-associated PE during the Delta and Omicron periods (p = .02) compared to vaccinated or recovered patients. CONCLUSION: Vaccination reduces the risk of COVID-19 associated PE. Patients infected with the Delta and Omicron COVID-19 variants may have a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism, though a larger or multi-institution study is needed to prove definitively.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Embolism , Vaccines , Humans , Incidence , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch ; 53(2): 431-444, 2022 04 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788336

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parent concerns about children's oral language, reading, and related skills and their children's performance on standardized assessments of language and reading, with a particular focus on whether those relationships differed between children recruited for in-school versus online participation. METHOD: This study used data from a larger, longitudinal project focused on children with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) and/or dyslexia. The "in-school" sample (n = 133) completed assessments in-person before school closures, and the "online" sample (n = 84) recruited via advertisements completed assessments online. Parents completed a checklist of concerns. All children completed norm-referenced assessments of language and reading. RESULTS: The two recruitment strategies yielded samples that differed in racial diversity (higher in the in-school sample), caregiver education levels (higher in the online sample), and word reading test scores (higher in the online sample). Parents in both samples reported higher levels of concerns about literacy skills than oral language skills, and the correlation between parent concerns about literacy and children's word reading test scores was stronger than the correlation between parent concerns about oral language and children's language test scores. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and clinicians should be aware of how recruitment strategies and assessment modalities (e.g., in-person vs. tele-assessment) may impact participation in studies and clinical service. A reliance on parent concerns about oral language to prompt a language evaluation may contribute to low rates of identification of children who meet criteria for DLD. Future research can consider parent concerns about literacy, attention, and executive functions as indicators of a need for language evaluation, especially considering the high comorbidity between language and other developmental disorders.


Subject(s)
Dyslexia , Reading , Child , Dyslexia/diagnosis , Humans , Language Tests , Literacy , Parents
4.
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol ; 51(1): 38-45, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015059

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has presented many logistical challenges, including unprecedented shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). A technique of obtaining portable chest radiographs (pCXR) through glass doors or windows to minimize technologist-patient contact and conserve PPE has gained popularity, but remains incompletely evaluated in the literature. Our goal was to quickly implement this technique and evaluate image quality and radiation dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An infographic and video were developed to educate nurses and technologists on the through-glass pCXR technique. Imaging parameters were optimized using a phantom and scatter radiation was measured. Three reviewers independently evaluated 100 conventionally obtained and 100 through-glass pCXRs from March 13, 2020 to April 30, 2020 on patients with suspected COVID-19, using criteria for positioning and sharpness/contrast on a 1 (confident criteria not met) to 5 (confident criteria met) scale. Imaging parameters, including deviation index (DI) were recorded for all radiographs. RESULTS: The through-glass method was rapidly adopted and conserved one isolation gown per interaction. Although there was a statistically significant difference in the positioning (P value 0.018) and sharpness/contrast (P value 0.016), the difference in mean ratings was small: 4.82 vs 4.65 for positioning and 4.67 vs 4.50 (conventional vs modified) for sharpness/contrast. Scatter radiation was measured using a thorax phantom and found to be acceptable for the patient and nearby personnel. Standard deviation was higher for the DI for the through-glass technique (2.8) compared to the conventional technique (1.8), although the means were similar. CONCLUSION: The through-glass technique was quickly implemented, producing diagnostic quality chest radiographs while conserving PPE and reducing risks to radiology staff. There was more variability with imaging technique and DI using the through-glass technique, likely due to technologist uncertainty regarding technical modifications. Further work to reduce this variation is necessary to optimize quality and dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Radiation Dosage , Radiography , Radiography, Thoracic , SARS-CoV-2 , Thorax
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL