ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although dizziness is a common symptom after vaccination, the mechanism, and prognosis are not well understood. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate patients with dizziness after COVID-19 vaccination by analyzing objective information. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who visited the outpatient clinics of two institutes with a complaint of dizziness occurring within 72 h after a COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: In most cases, patients experienced only a single event of dizziness, and the subjective symptom was relieved after a few weeks. All patients decreased gain of vestibular ocular reflex (VOR). The vestibular function test results showed signs of central vestibulopathy in some cases. We separated patients into two groups; the direction-fixed nystagmus (DFN) group and the direction-changing nystagmus (DCN) group. All patients showed decreased gain on the rotational chair test (RCT). The DFN group showed an 80% decrease in video head impulse test (vHIT) gain, whereas the DCN group only showed a decrease of 25%. In RCT, 66% of the DFN group showed asymmetry compared to 20% showing asymmetry in the DCN group. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The patients who suffered from dizziness after the COVID-19 vaccination exhibited decreased VOR gain and in some cases signs of central vestibulopathy.
ABSTRACT
Background: Although coronavirus disease 2019 is causing a variety of psychological problems for workers, there are few longitudinal studies on changes in workers' mental health by workplace intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the change in the prevalence of depression and anxiety according to the active involvement of the workplace. Methods: This study was conducted on 1,978 workers at a workplace who underwent a health screening from January 2019 to August 2020, and classified depression and anxiety disorders using a self-report questionnaire. After the first pandemic, the company stopped health screening, took paid leave and telecommuting, and conducted interventions such as operating its own screening clinic. To see if this workplace intervention affects workers' mental health, we conducted generalized estimating equations to compare odds ratio (OR). Results: In the pre-intervention group, 384 people (16.86%) had depression, and 507 people (22.26%) had anxiety disorder. Based on the OR before intervention, the OR of depression decreased to 0.76 (0.66-0.87) and the OR of anxiety disorder decreased to 0.73 (0.65-0.82). Conclusions: As a result of this study, it was confirmed that workplace intervention was related to a decrease in depression and anxiety. This study provides basic data to improve workers' mental health according to workplace intervention, and further research is needed according to workplace intervention in the future.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Health care workers (HCWs), and in particular anesthesia providers, often must perform aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs). However, no studies have analyzed droplet distributions on the bodies of HCWs during AGMPs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess and analyze droplet distributions on the bodies of HCWs during suction of oral cavities with and without oral airways and during extubations. DESIGN: Using a quasi-experiemental design, we assumed the HCWs perform suction and extubation on intubated patients, and we prepared an intubated mannequin mimicking a patient. This study performed the oral suction and extubation on the intubated mannequin (with or without oral airways in place) and analyzed the droplet distributions. METHODS: We prepared a mannequin intubated with an 8.0 mm endotracheal tube, assuming the situation of general anesthesia. We designed the body mapping gown, and divided it into 10 areas including the head, neck, chest, abdomen, upper arms, forearms, and hands. We classified experiments into group O when suctions were performed on the mannequin with an oral airway, and into group X when the suctions were performed on the mannequin without an oral airway. An experienced board-certified anesthesiologist performed 10 oral suctions on each mannequin, and 10 extubations. We counted the droplets on the anesthesiologist's gown according to the divided areas after each procedure. FINDINGS: The mean droplet count after suction was 6.20 ± 2.201 in group O and 13.6 ± 4.300 in group X, with a significant difference between the two groups (P < .001). The right and left hands were the most contaminated areas in group O (2.8 ± 1.033 droplets and 2.0 ± 0.943 droplets, respectively). The abdomen, right hand, left forearm, and left hand showed many droplets in group X. (1.3 ± 1.337 droplets, 3.1 ± 1.792 droplets, 3.2 ± 3.910 droplets, and 4.3 ± 2.214 droplets, respectively). The chest, abdomen, and left hand presented significantly more droplets in group X than in group O. The trunk area (chest and abdomen) was exposed to more droplets during extubations than during suctions. CONCLUSIONS: During suctions, more droplets are splattered from mannequins without oral airways than from those with oral airways. The right and left hands were the most contaminated areas in group O. Moreover, the abdomen, right hand, left forearm, and left hand presented a lot of droplets in group X. In addition, extubations contaminate wider areas (the head, neck, chest and abdomen) of an HCW than suctions.