Revascularization prevents amputation among patients with diabetic foot during the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant changes in healthcare systems that impact the management of chronic diseases such as diabetic foot (DF). We hypothesized that lack of access to healthcare would increase the severity of disease and lead to worse outcomes. METHODS: The medical records of patients with DF were reviewed to determine demographic data and outcomes including wound healing, major amputation (MA), and death. Groups were divided into the pre-COVID-19 era (15 March 2019-15 March 2020) and the COVID-19 era (16 March 2020-16 March 2021); multivariable logistic analysis was performed to identify risk factors for MA. RESULTS: 261 patients with DF were included, 163 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 98 during the COVID-19 era. Patients in the COVID-19 presented with increased cardiovascular disease (19 vs 7%, p = 0.01), increased mean HbA1C (9.1 ± 2.1 vs 8.2 ± 2.1, p = 0.008) and higher WIFI-IV stage (78 vs 53%, p ≤ 0.0001). Patients with DF in the COVID-19 era were more likely to require MA (41 vs 21%, p ≤ 0.0001). Revascularization (OR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.038-0.38) was a protective factor to reduce MA. CONCLUSIONS: MA among DF patients increased two-fold during the COVID-19 era. Revascularization avoids MA in diabetic patients even during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that revascularization should be performed when possible.

Clinical Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism in Mexican Patients With COVID-19.

Coagulation abnormalities have been reported in COVID-19 patients, which may lead to an increased risk of Pulmonary Embolism (PE). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE during their hospital stay. We analyzed patients with PE and COVID-19 in a tertiary center in Mexico City from April to October of 2020. A total of 26 (100%) patients were diagnosed with Pulmonary Embolism and COVID-19. We observed that 14 (54%) patients were receiving either prophylactic or full anticoagulation therapy, before PE diagnosis. We found a significant difference in mortality between the group with less than 7 days (83%) and the group with more than 7 days (15%) in Intensive Care Unit (P = .004); as well as a mean of 8 days for the mortality group compared with 20 days of hospitalization in the survivor group (P = .003). In conclusion, there is an urgent need to review antithrombotic therapy in these patients in order to improve clinical outcomes and decrease hospital overload.

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.