ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate different auditory regions with audiological tests, based on the presumption that there may be damage to the structures in the hearing system after coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: Twenty individuals with no history of coronavirus disease 2019 and 27 individuals diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 were compared. Pure tone, speech and extended high-frequency audiometry, acoustic immitansmetry, transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions testing, and auditory brainstem response testing were conducted. RESULTS: The pure tone audiometry and extended high-frequency mean threshold values were higher in the coronavirus disease 2019 group. The transient evoked otoacoustic emissions signal-to-noise ratios were bilaterally lower at 4 kHz in individuals with a coronavirus disease 2019 history. In the auditory brainstem response test, only the interpeak latencies of waves III-V were significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Coronavirus disease 2019 may cause damage to the hearing system. Patients should be followed up in the long term with advanced audiological evaluation methods in order to determine the extent and level of damage.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hearing Disorders/etiology , Adult , Audiometry , Audiometry, Evoked Response , Audiometry, Pure-Tone , Auditory Threshold , Case-Control Studies , Female , Hearing Disorders/diagnosis , Hearing Disorders/virology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on health care and cardiac surgery. We report cardiac surgeons' concerns, perceptions, and responses during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed survey was sent to recruit participating adult cardiac surgery centers in North America. Data regarding cardiac surgeons' perceptions and changes in practice were analyzed. RESULTS: Our study comprises 67 institutions with diverse geographic distribution across North America. Nurses were most likely to be redeployed (88%), followed by advanced care practitioners (69%), trainees (28%), and surgeons (25%). Examining surgeon concerns in regard to COVID-19, they were most worried with exposing their family to COVID-19 (81%), followed by contracting COVID-19 (68%), running out of personal protective equipment (PPE) (28%), and hospital resources (28%). In terms of PPE conservation strategies among users of N95 respirators, nearly half were recycling via decontamination with ultraviolet light (49%), followed by sterilization with heat (13%) and at home or with other modalities (13%). Reuse of N95 respirators for 1 day (22%), 1 week (21%) or 1 month (6%) was reported. There were differences in adoption of methods to conserve N95 respirators based on institutional pandemic phase and COVID-19 burden, with higher COVID-19 burden institutions more likely to resort to PPE conservation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates the impact of COVID-19 on North American cardiac surgeons. Our study should stimulate further discussions to identify optimal solutions to improve workforce preparedness for subsequent surges, as well as facilitate the navigation of future healthcare crises.