Development and design of a mobile application for prescription opioid clinical decision-making: a feasibility study in New York City, USA.

OBJECTIVES: Excessive opioid prescribing is a contributing factor to the opioid epidemic in the USA. We aimed to develop, implement and evaluate the usability of a clinical decision-making mobile application (app) for opioid prescription after surgery. METHODS: We developed two clinical decision trees, one for opioid prescription after adult laparoscopic cholecystectomy and one for posterior spinal fusion surgery in adolescents. We developed a mobile app incorporating the two algorithms with embedded clinical decision-making, which was tested by opioid prescribers. A survey collected prescription intention prior to app use and participants' evaluation. Participants included opioid prescribers for patients undergoing (1) laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults or (2) posterior spinal fusion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. RESULTS: Eighteen healthcare providers were included in this study (General Surgery: 8, Paediatrics: 10). Intended opioid prescription before app use varied between departments (General Surgery: 0-10 pills (mean=5.9); Paediatrics: 6-30 pills (mean=20.8)). Intention to continue using the app after using the app multiple times varied between departments (General Surgery: N=3/8; Paediatrics: N=7/10). The most reported reason for not using the app is lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: In this project evaluating the development and implementation of an app for opioid prescription after two common surgeries with different prescription patterns, the surgical procedure with higher intended and variable opioid prescription (adolescent posterior spinal fusion surgery) was associated with participants more willing to use the app. Future iterations of this opioid prescribing intervention should target surgical procedures with high variability in both patients' opioid use and providers' prescription patterns.

Anesthesia Considerations for Pregnant People With COVID-19 Infection.

The purpose of this review is to describe updates following initial recommendations on best anesthesia practices for obstetric patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The first surge in the United States prompted anesthesiologists to adapt workflows and reconsider obstetric anesthesia care, with emphasis on avoidance of general anesthesia, the benefit of early neuraxial labor analgesia, and prevention of emergent cesarean delivery whenever possible. While workflows have changed to allow sustained safety for obstetric patients and health care workers, it is notable that obstetric anesthesia protocols for labor and delivery have not significantly evolved since the first coronavirus disease 2019 wave.

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry: An Analysis of Outcomes Among Pregnant Women Delivering During the Initial Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Outbreak in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Early reports associating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with adverse pregnancy outcomes were biased by including only women with severe disease without controls. The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) registry was created to compare peripartum outcomes and anesthetic utilization in women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection delivering at institutions with widespread testing. METHODS: Deliveries from 14 US medical centers, from March 19 to May 31, 2020, were included. Peripartum infection was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test within 14 days of delivery. Consecutive SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with randomly selected control patients were sampled (1:2 ratio) with controls delivering during the same day without a positive test. Outcomes were obstetric (eg, delivery mode, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and delivery <37 weeks), an adverse neonatal outcome composite measure (primary), and anesthetic utilization (eg, neuraxial labor analgesia and anesthesia). Outcomes were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses compared symptomatic and asymptomatic patients to controls. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred fifty four peripartum women were included: 490 with SARS-CoV-2 infection (176 [35.9%] symptomatic) and 964 were controls. SARS-CoV-2 patients were slightly younger, more likely nonnulliparous, nonwhite, and Hispanic than controls. They were more likely to have diabetes, obesity, or cardiac disease and less likely to have autoimmune disease. After adjustment for confounders, individuals experiencing SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited an increased risk for delivery <37 weeks of gestation compared to controls, 73 (14.8%) vs 98 (10.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.09). Effect estimates for other obstetric outcomes and the neonatal composite outcome measure were not meaningfully different between SARS-CoV-2 patients versus controls. In sensitivity analyses, compared to controls, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 patients exhibited increases in cesarean delivery (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.09-2.27), postpartum length of stay (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60), and delivery <37 weeks of gestation (aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.29-3.36). These adverse outcomes were not found in asymptomatic women versus controls. SARS-CoV-2 patients (asymptomatic and symptomatic) were less likely to receive neuraxial labor analgesia (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.75) and more likely to receive general anesthesia for cesarean delivery (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.40-9.74) due to maternal respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter US cohort study of women with and without peripartum SARS-CoV-2 infection, differences in obstetric and neonatal outcomes seem to be mostly driven by symptomatic patients. Lower utilization of neuraxial analgesia in laboring patients with asymptomatic or symptomatic infection compared to patients without infection requires further investigation.

Clinical and Demographic Risk Factors for COVID-19 during Delivery Hospitalizations in New York City.

OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to review 4 weeks of universal novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening among delivery hospitalizations, at two hospitals in March and April 2020 in New York City, to compare outcomes between patients based on COVID-19 status and to determine whether demographic risk factors and symptoms predicted screening positive for COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study evaluated all patients admitted for delivery from March 22 to April 18, 2020, at two New York City hospitals. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were collected. The relationship between COVID-19 and demographic, clinical, and maternal and neonatal outcome data was evaluated. Demographic data included the number of COVID-19 cases ascertained by ZIP code of residence. Adjusted logistic regression models were performed to determine predictability of demographic risk factors for COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 454 women delivered, 79 (17%) had COVID-19. Of those, 27.9% (n = 22) had symptoms such as cough (13.9%), fever (10.1%), chest pain (5.1%), and myalgia (5.1%). While women with COVID-19 were more likely to live in the ZIP codes quartile with the most cases (47 vs. 41%) and less likely to live in the ZIP code quartile with the fewest cases (6 vs. 14%), these comparisons were not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Women with COVID-19 were less likely to have a vaginal delivery (55.2 vs. 51.9%, p = 0.04) and had a significantly longer postpartum length of stay with cesarean (2.00 vs. 2.67days, p < 0.01). COVID-19 was associated with higher risk for diagnoses of chorioamnionitis and pneumonia and fevers without a focal diagnosis. In adjusted analyses, including demographic factors, logistic regression demonstrated a c-statistic of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69, 0.80). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 symptoms were present in a minority of COVID-19-positive women admitted for delivery. Significant differences in obstetrical outcomes were found. While demographic risk factors demonstrated acceptable discrimination, risk prediction does not capture a significant portion of COVID-19-positive patients. KEY POINTS: · COVID-19 symptoms were present in a minority of COVID-19-positive women admitted.. · COVID-19 symptomatology did not appear to differ before or after the apex of infection in New York.. · Demographic risk factors are unlikely to capture a significant portion of COVID-19-positive patients..

Management of maternal COVID-19: considerations for anesthesiologists.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe updates to pragmatic recommendations that were published during the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surge, including the current thinking about whether pregnancy worsens the severity of COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Although a majority of pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remain asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic, pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19 and adverse birth outcomes. Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be admitted to intensive care units and receive mechanical ventilation than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19, although preexisting maternal comorbidities are significant risk factors.Early provision of neuraxial labor analgesia with a functional indwelling epidural catheter has been universally promoted, with the goal to reduce avoidable general anesthesia for cesarean delivery and mitigate risks for healthcare workers during airway manipulation. This recommendation, along with updated workflow models of anesthesia coverage, may contribute to a reduction in general anesthesia rates. SUMMARY: Initial recommendations to provide early neuraxial labor analgesia and avoid general anesthesia for cesarean delivery have not changed over time. Although workflows have significantly changed to allow continued patient and healthcare workers' safety, clinical anesthesia protocols for labor and delivery are essentially the same.

Coronavirus disease 2019 infection among asymptomatic and symptomatic pregnant women: two weeks of confirmed presentations to an affiliated pair of New York City hospitals.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 is rapidly spreading throughout the New York metropolitan area since its first reported case on March 1, 2020. The state is now the epicenter of coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in the United States, with 84,735 cases reported as of April 2, 2020. We previously presented an early case series with 7 coronavirus disease 2019-positive pregnant patients, 2 of whom were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 after an initial asymptomatic presentation. We now describe a series of 43 test-positive cases of coronavirus disease 2019 presenting to an affiliated pair of New York City hospitals for more than 2 weeks, from March 13, 2020, to March 27, 2020. A total of 14 patients (32.6%) presented without any coronavirus disease 2019-associated viral symptoms and were identified after they developed symptoms during admission or after the implementation of universal testing for all obstetric admissions on March 22. Among them, 10 patients (71.4%) developed symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 over the course of their delivery admission or early after postpartum discharge. Of the other 29 patients (67.4%) who presented with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019, 3 women ultimately required antenatal admission for viral symptoms, and another patient re-presented with worsening respiratory status requiring oxygen supplementation 6 days postpartum after a successful labor induction. There were no confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 detected in neonates upon initial testing on the first day of life. Based on coronavirus disease 2019 disease severity characteristics by Wu and McGoogan, 37 women (86%) exhibited mild disease, 4 (9.3%) severe disease, and 2 (4.7%) critical disease; these percentages are similar to those described in nonpregnant adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (about 80% mild, 15% severe, and 5% critical disease).

Laypersons' Priority-Setting Preferences for Allocating a COVID-19 Patient to a Ventilator: Does a Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Matter?

PURPOSE: The current study aimed 1) to assess laypersons' priority-setting preferences for allocating ventilators to COVID-19 patients with and without AD while differentiating between a young and an old person with the disease, and 2) to examine the factors associated with these preferences. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a sample of 309 Israeli Jewish persons aged 40 and above. RESULTS: Overall, almost three quarters (71%) of the participants chose the 80-year-old patient with a diagnosis of AD to be the last to be provided with a ventilator. The preferences of the remaining quarter were divided between the 80-year-old person who was cognitively intact and the 55-year-old person with AD. Education and subjective knowledge about AD were significantly associated with participants' preferences. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that cognitive status might not be a strong discriminating factor for laypersons' preferences for allocating ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What obstetricians should know about obstetric anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted obstetric anesthesiologists to reconsider the ways in which basic anesthesia care is provided on the Labor and Delivery Unit. Suggested modifications include an added emphasis on avoiding general anesthesia, a strong encouragement to infected individuals to opt for early neuraxial analgesia, and the prevention of emergent cesarean delivery, whenever possible. Through team efforts, adopting these measures can have real effects on reducing the transmission of the viral illness and maintaining patient and caregiver safety in the labor room.

Building an obstetric intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary hospital and selected maternal-fetal and delivery considerations.

During the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, New York City became an international epicenter for this highly infectious respiratory virus. In anticipation of the unfortunate reality of community spread and high disease burden, the Anesthesia and Obstetrics and Gynecology departments at NewYork-Presbyterian / Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an academic hospital system in Manhattan, created an Obstetric Intensive Care Unit on Labor and Delivery to defray volume from the hospital's preexisting intensive care units. Its purpose was threefold: (1) to accommodate the anticipated influx of critically ill pregnant and postpartum patients due to novel coronavirus, (2) to care for critically ill obstetric patients who would previously have been transferred to a non-obstetric intensive care unit, and (3) to continue caring for our usual census of pregnant and postpartum patients, who are novel Coronavirus negative and require a higher level of care. In this chapter, we share key operational details for the conversion of a non-intensive care space into an obstetric intensive care unit, with an emphasis on the infrastructure, personnel and workflow, as well as the goals for maternal and fetal monitoring.

Reductions in commuting mobility correlate with geographic differences in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in New York City.

SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and hospitalizations differ substantially between New York City neighborhoods. Mitigation efforts require knowing the extent to which these disparities reflect differences in prevalence and understanding the associated drivers. Here, we report the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in New York City boroughs inferred using tests administered to 1,746 pregnant women hospitalized for delivery between March 22nd and May 3rd, 2020. We also assess the relationship between prevalence and commuting-style movements into and out of each borough. Prevalence ranged from 11.3% (95% credible interval [8.9%, 13.9%]) in Manhattan to 26.0% (15.3%, 38.9%) in South Queens, with an estimated city-wide prevalence of 15.6% (13.9%, 17.4%). Prevalence was lowest in boroughs with the greatest reductions in morning movements out of and evening movements into the borough (Pearson R = -0.88 [-0.52, -0.99]). Widespread testing is needed to further specify disparities in prevalence and assess the risk of future outbreaks.

Anesthesiologists' and Intensive Care Providers' Exposure to COVID-19 Infection in a New York City Academic Center: A Prospective Cohort Study Assessing Symptoms and COVID-19 Antibody Testing.

BACKGROUND: Protecting first-line health care providers against work-related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at the onset of the pandemic has been a crucial challenge in the United States. Anesthesiologists in particular are considered at risk, since aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation and extubation, have been shown to significantly increase the odds for respiratory infections during severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreaks. This study assessed the incidence of COVID-19-like symptoms and the presence of COVID-19 antibodies after work-related COVID-19 exposures, among physicians working in a large academic hospital in New York City (NYC). METHODS: An e-mail survey was addressed to anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center on April 15, 2020. The survey assessed 4 domains: (1) demographics and medical history, (2) community exposure to COVID-19 (eg, use of NYC subway), (3) work-related exposure to COVID-19, and (4) development of COVID-19-like symptoms after work exposure. The first 100 survey responders were invited to undergo a blood test to assess antibody status (presence of immunoglobulin M [IgM]/immunoglobulin G [IgG] specific to COVID-19). Work-related exposure was defined as any episode where the provider was not wearing adequate personal protective equipment (airborne or droplet/contact protection depending on the exposure type). Based on the clinical scenario, work exposure was categorized as high risk (eg, exposure during intubation) or low risk (eg, exposure during doffing). RESULTS: Two hundred and five health care providers were contacted and 105 completed the survey (51%); 91 completed the serological test. Sixty-one of the respondents (58%) reported at least 1 work-related exposure and 54% of the exposures were high risk. Among respondents reporting a work-related exposure, 16 (26.2%) reported postexposure COVID-19-like symptoms. The most frequent symptoms were myalgia (9 cases), diarrhea (8 cases), fever (7 cases), and sore throat (7 cases). COVID-19 antibodies were detected in 11 of the 91 tested respondents (12.1%), with no difference between respondents with (11.8%) or without (12.5%) a work-related exposure, including high-risk exposure. Compared with antibody-negative respondents, antibody-positive respondents were more likely to use NYC subway to commute to work and report COVID-19-like symptoms in the past 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: In the epicenter of the United States' pandemic and within 6-8 weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, a small proportion of anesthesiologists and affiliated intensive care providers reported COVID-19-like symptoms after a work-related exposure and even fewer had detectable COVID-19 antibodies. The presence of COVID-19 antibodies appeared to be associated with community/environmental transmission rather than secondary to work-related exposures involving high-risk procedures.

Obstetric Anesthesia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

With increasing numbers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases due to efficient human-to-human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the United States, preparation for the unpredictable setting of labor and delivery is paramount. The priorities are 2-fold in the management of obstetric patients with COVID-19 infection or persons under investigation (PUI): (1) caring for the range of asymptomatic to critically ill pregnant and postpartum women; (2) protecting health care workers and beyond from exposure during the delivery hospitalization (health care providers, personnel, family members). The goal of this review is to provide evidence-based recommendations or, when evidence is limited, expert opinion for anesthesiologists caring for pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on preparedness and best clinical obstetric anesthesia practice.