Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis Was Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic Shutdown.

INTRODUCTION: In the spring of 2020, New York City was one of the first epicenters of the COVID outbreak. In this study, we evaluate the incidence and treatment of appendicitis in two New York City community hospitals during the COVID pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective study focused on the incidence and outcome of acute appendicitis in the adult population (>18 y old) during peak-COVID periods (March 16, 2020,-June 15, 2020) compared to pre-COVID and post-COVID periods. We compared the number of patients who underwent operative versus nonoperative management, patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), complications, and readmission rates within these time periods. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (analysis of variance). RESULTS: From January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, 393 patients presented with acute appendicitis and 321 (81.7%) were treated operatively, compared to 441 total and 366 treated operatively (83%) in 2019 (P = 0.88). During the COVID outbreak, fewer patients presented with appendicitis (mean 6.9 ± 1 pre-COVID case/week, 4.4 ± 2.4 peak-COVID cases/week and 7.6 ± 0.65 post-COVID cases/week, P = 0.018) with no significant difference in the pre-COVID and post-COVID period. There was no difference in LOS between the pre-, peak-, and post-COVID periods with a median of 1 for all the three, (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8-2, 0.6-2, 0.6-2, respectively, P = 0.43). Additionally, there was no difference in 30-day readmission rates (4.2%, 0%, 3.9%, P = 0.99) and postoperative complications (4.2%, 0%, 2.9%, P = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: During peak-COVID, there was a significant reduction in the number of patients who presented with acute appendicitis without a post rebound increase in presentation. Those who presented during peak-COVID were able to undergo operative management safely, without affecting LOS or postoperative complications.

Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis is Safe During the COVID-19 Pandemic Shutdown

Background In the spring of 2020, New York City was one of the first epicenters of the COVID outbreak. In this study, we evaluate the incidence and treatment of appendicitis in two New York City community hospitals during the COVID pandemic. Methods This retrospective study focused on the incidence and outcome of acute appendicitis in the adult population (>18yo) during peak-COVID (3/16/20-6/15/20) compared to pre and post. We compared the number of patients who underwent operative vs non-operative management, patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), complications, and readmission rates within these time periods. Data is presented as mean ± SD (ANOVA). Results From 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020, 393 patients presented with acute appendicitis and 321 (81.7%) were treated operatively, compared to 441 total and 366 treated operatively (83%) in 2019 (p=0.88). During the COVID outbreak, fewer patients presented with appendicitis (mean 6.9±1 pre-, 4.4±2.4 peak- and 7.6±0.65 post-COVID cases/week, p=0.018) with no significant difference pre and post. There was no difference in LOS between the pre, peak, and post periods with median of 1 for all three, (IQR 0.8-2, 0.6-2, 0.6-2 respectively p = 0.43). Additionally, there was no difference in 30-day readmission rates (4.2%, 0%, 3.9%, p=0.99) and post-operative complications (4.2%, 0%, 2.9%, p=0.98). Conclusion During peak-COVID, there was significant reduction in the number of patients who presented with acute appendicitis without a post-rebound increase in presentation. Those who presented during peak-COVID were able to undergo operative management safely, without affecting length of stay or post-operative complications.

Teprotumumab in advanced reactivated thyroid eye disease.

Purpose: To report the case of a patient with reactivated, refractory thyroid eye disease (TED) treated with teprotumumab. Observations: A 51-year-old female with a 16-year history of thyroid eye disease previously treated with orbital decompression and multiple eyelid surgeries presented in a recurrent flare of the disease. The disease recurrence was refractory to intravenous steroid therapy and only partially responsive to oral steroid therapy, and the patient developed dysthyroid optic neuropathy in the right eye with decreased visual acuity and color vision. Clinical activity score was 8/10 and proptosis measurements were 27 mm OD and 26 mm OS. The patient underwent treatment with eight infusions of teprotumumab coinciding with a low taper of oral prednisone and experienced resolution of dysthyroid optic neuropathy, decrease of clinical activity score to 1, and dramatic improvement in proptosis (17 mm OD, 17 mm OS) and extraocular muscle size on imaging. Thirty weeks after completion of teprotumumab and 2 weeks after the second dose of the COVID vaccine, she experienced another flare and subsequently underwent bilateral orbital decompressions. Conclusion: This case report suggests teprotumumab may be used in patients with reactivation of longstanding thyroid eye disease. Reduction of extraocular muscle size and improvement in proptosis suggest teprotumumab may be disease-modifying even in advanced cases.

Operative Shutdown and Recovery: Restructuring Surgical Operations During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in New York City, hospitals canceled elective surgeries to increase capacity for critically ill patients. We present case volume data from our community hospital to demonstrate how this shutdown affected surgical care. METHODS: Between March 16 and June 14, 2020, all elective surgeries were canceled at our institution. All procedures performed during this operating room shutdown (ORS) were logged, as well as those 4 weeks before (PRE) and 4 weeks after (POST) for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 2,475 cases were included in our analysis, with 754 occurring during shutdown. Overall case numbers dropped significantly during ORS and increased during recovery (mean 245.0 ± 28.4 PRE versus 58.0 ± 30.9 ORS versus 186.0±19.4 POST cases/wk, P< 0.001). Emergency cases predominated during ORS (26.4% PRE versus 59.3% ORS versus 31.5% POST, P< 0.001) despite decreasing in frequency (mean 64.5 ± 7.9 PRE versus 34.4 ± 12.1 ORS versus 58.5 ± 4.0 POST cases/wk, P< 0.001). Open surgeries remained constant in all three phases (52.2-54.1%), whereas laparoscopic and robotic surgeries decreased (-3.4% and -3.0%, P< 0.001). General and/or vascular surgery, urology, and neurosurgery comprised a greater proportion of caseload (+9.5%, +3.0%, +2.8%), whereas orthopedics, gynecology, and otolaryngology/plastic surgery all decreased proportionally (-5.0%, -4.4%, -5.9%, P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Operative volume significantly decreased during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Emergency cases predominated during this time, although there were fewer emergency cases overall. General/vascular surgery became the most active service and open surgeries became more common. This reallocation of resources may be useful for future crisis planning among community hospitals.

Utility of d-dimer for diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in coronavirus disease-19 infection.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical usefulness of d-dimer in excluding a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection, potentially limiting the need for venous duplex ultrasound examination. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients admitted to our institution with confirmed COVID-19 status by polymerase chain reaction between March 1, 2020, and May 13, 2020, and selected those who underwent both d-dimer and venous duplex ultrasound examination. This cohort was divided into two groups, those with and without DVT based on duplex ultrasound examination. These groups were then compared to determine the value of d-dimer in establishing this diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1170 patients were admitted with COVID-19, of which 158 were selected for this study. Of the 158, there were 52 patients with DVT and 106 without DVT. There were no differences in sex, age, race, or ethnicity between groups. Diabetes and routine hemodialysis were less commonly seen in the group with DVT. More than 90% of patients in both groups received prophylactic anticoagulation, but the use of low-molecular-weight heparin or subcutaneous heparin prophylaxis was not predictive of DVT. All patients had elevated acute-phase d-dimer levels using conventional criteria, and 154 of the 158 (97.5%) had elevated levels with age-adjusted criteria (mean d-dimer 16,163 ± 5395 ng/mL). Those with DVT had higher acute-phase d-dimer levels than those without DVT (median, 13,602 [interquartile range, 6616-36,543 ng/mL] vs 2880 [interquartile range, 1030-9126 ng/mL], P < .001). An optimal d-dimer cutoff of 6494 ng/mL was determined to differentiate those with and without DVT (sensitivity 80.8%, specificity 68.9%, negative predictive value 88.0%). Wells DVT criteria was not found to be a significant predictor of DVT. Elevated d-dimer as defined by our optimal metric was a statistically significant predictor of DVT in both univariate and multivariable analyses when adjusting for other factors (odds ratio, 6.12; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-13.39; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: d-dimer levels are uniformly elevated in patients with COVID-19. Although standard predictive criteria failed to predict DVT, our analysis showed a d-dimer of less than 6494 ng/mL may exclude DVT, potentially limiting the need for venous duplex ultrasound examination.