Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Wound Manag Prev ; 69(1): 49-57, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2288038

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitalizations in New York state were restricted to emergency purposes. Non-COVID related cases involving lower extremity wounds were only admitted for acute infections and limb salvage. Patients with these conditions were placed at higher risk for eventual limb loss. PURPOSE: To understand the impact of COVID-19 on amputation rates. METHODS: A retrospective review of lower limb institution-wide amputations was conducted at Northwell Health from January 2020 to January 2021. The amputation rates during the COVID-19 shutdown period were compared to the pre-pandemic, post-shutdown, and reopening period. RESULTS: The pre-pandemic period had 179 amputations, of which 8.38 % were proximal. 86 amputations were performed during shutdown, with a greater proportion being proximal (25.58 %, p=0.0009). Following the shutdown period, amputations returned to baseline. The proportion of proximal amputations during post-shutdown was 18.5 % and during reopening was 12.06 %. Patients had 4.89 times higher odds of undergoing a proximal amputation during the shutdown period. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of COVID-19 on amputation rates demonstrates an increase in proximal amputation during the initial shutdown. This study suggests an indirect negative effect of COVID-19 hospital restrictions on surgeries during the initial shutdown period.


Subject(s)
Amputees , COVID-19 , Leg Injuries , Humans , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Amputation, Surgical , Leg Injuries/surgery
2.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 19(8): 1346-1354, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974363

ABSTRACT

Rationale: During the first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City, the number of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients rapidly surpassed the capacity of traditional intensive care units (ICUs), resulting in health systems utilizing other areas as expanded ICUs to provide critical care. Objectives: To evaluate the mortality of patients admitted to expanded ICUs compared with those admitted to traditional ICUs. Methods: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs at 11 Northwell Health hospitals in the greater New York City area between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality up to 28 days after intubation of COVID-19 patients. Results: Among 1,966 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 1,198 (61%) died within 28 days after intubation, 46 (2%) were transferred to other hospitals outside of the Northwell Health system, 722 (37%) survived in the hospital until 28 days or were discharged after recovery. The risk of mortality of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.20; P = 0.28), while hospital occupancy for critically ill patients itself was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12-1.45; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although increased hospital occupancy for critically ill patients itself was associated with increased mortality, the risk of 28-day in-hospital mortality of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to expanded ICUs was not different from those admitted to traditional ICUs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , New York City/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies
3.
West J Emerg Med ; 23(3): 396-407, 2022 May 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1893256

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a salient component of reducing occupational risk in many fields. Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel use PPE to reduce risk of exposure and defend against various pathogens they come in contact with while providing patient care. Currently, the understanding of factors that predict the use of PPE by an EMS responder during a pandemic is limited. In this study our objective was to identify factors that influenced PPE use by EMS responders during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which may guide future planning for responders in similar austere or personal risk situations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review among all EMS encounters across an EMS agency affiliated with a large New York health system from March 16-June 30, 2020. All adult, emergency encounters with available prehospital record data were analyzed. We assessed patient- and EMS encounter-level data as possible factors that influence PPE utilization. The use of PPE was defined and guided by the literature as being either full or partial PPE, or "not documented." We used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors that influence PPE use among EMS responders. RESULTS: We identified 28,693 eligible EMS encounters during the study period; 54.2% of patients were male, the median patient age was 58 years, and 66.9% of patients had at least one chronic medical condition. The use of PPE was documented in 92.8% of encounters, with full PPE used in 17.8% of these encounters. Full PPE utilization, relative to partial, was most strongly influenced by dispatch codes indicative of "breathing problems" (odds ratio [OR] 4.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.40, 5.46) and "cardiac/respiratory arrest" (OR 3.82; 95% CI: 2.99, 4.88), in addition to a patient's positive screening for COVID-19 on 9-1-1 dispatch (OR 3.97; 95% CI: 3.66, 4.32). CONCLUSION: Emergency medical services responders more frequently used full PPE for calls with dispatch codes indicative of respiratory distress or cardiac arrest. Understanding factors that influence PPE use among EMS personnel, particularly during times of public health emergencies, is essential to mitigate exposure and ensure the safety of frontline responders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Retrospective Studies
5.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 21124, 2021 10 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493211

ABSTRACT

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can have increased risk of mortality shortly after intubation. The aim of this study is to develop a model using predictors of early mortality after intubation from COVID-19. A retrospective study of 1945 intubated patients with COVID-19 admitted to 12 Northwell hospitals in the greater New York City area was performed. Logistic regression model using backward selection was applied. This study evaluated predictors of 14-day mortality after intubation for COVID-19 patients. The predictors of mortality within 14 days after intubation included older age, history of chronic kidney disease, lower mean arterial pressure or increased dose of required vasopressors, higher urea nitrogen level, higher ferritin, higher oxygen index, and abnormal pH levels. We developed and externally validated an intubated COVID-19 predictive score (ICOP). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 (95% CI 0.73-0.78) in the derivation cohort and 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.75) in the validation cohort; both were significantly greater than corresponding values for sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) or CURB-65 scores. The externally validated predictive score may help clinicians estimate early mortality risk after intubation and provide guidance for deciding the most effective patient therapies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Severity of Illness Index , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Arterial Pressure , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Ferritins/blood , Humans , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Male , Middle Aged , New York , Nitrogen/metabolism , Oxygen/metabolism , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Regression Analysis , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Vasoconstrictor Agents/pharmacology , Young Adult
6.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; : 1-10, 2021 Jul 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266059

ABSTRACT

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems have received guidelines as part of coordinated response efforts aimed at mitigating exposures and ensuring occupational wellbeing, including recommendations of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) utilization, and modifications of Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) caller queries. The aim of the study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of an EMD telephone screening process for the identification of hospital diagnosed COVID-19 positive patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of adult EMS encounters presenting to hospitals within a large health system from March 16-June 30, 2020. EMD telephone screening status was defined as either "positive" or "negative" and was collected from prehospital medical records. COVID-19 positive patients were confirmed via hospital laboratory diagnosis and were matched to their prehospital medical record data. Patient demographics and EMS encounter level data, such as Dispatch Code and Priority level, were also collected. Estimations of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were made. Emergency telephone screening status was stratified by COVID-19 diagnosis to describe discordant pairs. Results: Of the 3,443 total encounters screened, there were 652 patients who were subsequently COVID-19 positive per hospital diagnosis (18.9%). Approximately 5.0% of all encounters did not screen positive on EMD screening but were later COVID-19 positive. Conversely, 44.2% of encounters screened positive for COVID-19, but were subsequently negative. Sensitivity of the EMD telephonic screening was estimated as 75.0% (95% CI 71.7%, 78.3%) and specificity was 45.5% (95% CI 43.7%, 47.4%). The PPV was 24.3% (95% CI 22.5%, 26.0%), and NPV 88.6% (95% CI 87.0%, 90.3%). Conclusions: The sensitivity of the EMD telephonic screening process was moderately able to identify COVID-19 positive patients. There is a need to reevaluate and revise guidelines and recommendations, specifically modified caller queries, as part of ongoing pandemic emergency response efforts in order to reduce transmissions and maximize patient and provider safety.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL