Monitored anesthesia care during mechanical thrombectomy for stroke: need for data-driven and individualized decisions.

BACKGROUND: The optimal anesthesia management for patients with stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) during the COVID-19 pandemic has become a matter of controversy. Some recent guidelines have favored general anesthesia (GA) in patients perceived as high risk for intraprocedural conversion from sedation to GA, including those with dominant hemispheric occlusions/aphasia or baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score >15. We aim to identify the rate and predictors of conversion to GA during MT in a high-volume center where monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is the default modality. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained MT database from January 2013 to July 2020 was undertaken. Analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of intraprocedural conversion to GA. In addition, we analyzed the GA conversion rates in subgroups of interest. RESULTS: Among 1919 MT patients, 1681 (87.6%) started treatment under MAC (median age 65 years (IQR 55-76); baseline NIHSS 16 (IQR 11-21); 48.4% women). Of the 1677 eligible patients, 26 (1.6%) converted to GA including 1.4% (22/1615) with anterior and 6.5% (4/62) with posterior circulation strokes. The only predictor of GA conversion was posterior circulation stroke (OR 4.99, 95% CI 1.67 to 14.96, P=0.004). The conversion rates were numerically higher in right than in left hemispheric occlusions (1.6% vs 1.2%; OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.19, P=0.47) and in milder than in more severe strokes (NIHSS ≤15 vs >15: 2% vs 1.2%; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.36, P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the overall rate of conversion from MAC to GA during MT was low (1.6%) and, while higher in posterior circulation strokes, it was not predicted by either hemispheric dominance or stroke severity. Caution should be given before changing clinical practice during moments of crisis.

The impact of racism on emergency health care workers.

INTRODUCTION: Discrimination based on race is a known source of stress in individuals and is a contributor to poor health outcomes in patients. However, less is known about how the experiences of racism impact the stress levels of emergency health care workers (EHCWs). OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the impact that racism has on the stress of EHCWs. METHODS: An anonymous electronic cross-sectional survey of EHCWs including attending physicians, resident physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and staff at three large metropolitan hospitals was administered in the summer of 2020. The survey evaluated the stress related to systemic racism and the COVID-19 pandemic in addition to the wellness measures utilized to cope with these stressors. The focus of this article is the impact of systemic racism on EHCWs. RESULTS: Of the 576 eligible participants, the total number of respondents utilized for analysis was 260. Overall, 64% of participants were very concerned about the state of racism in the United States, and 30% reported moderate-high or high stress resulting from racism. When stratified by race, 46% of Black participants reported moderate-high or high stress resulting from racism, compared to 31% of other participants of color and 23% of White participants (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Systemic racism is a significant concern and source of stress for EHCWs. Additional research about systemic racism, its impact on medical providers, and more importantly, active strategies to reduce and ultimately eliminate it in health care is needed.

Self-Reported Use of Personal Protective Equipment among Emergency Department Nurses, Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) have seen dramatic surges in patients infected with COVID-19 and are high-risk transmission environments. Knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) among ED health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been studied, thus this study examines this knowledge gap. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 308 HCWs in two urban EDs in Atlanta, Georgia in April and May of 2020. RESULTS: We surveyed 308 HCWs; 137 responded (44% response rate). All HCWs reported adequate knowledge and 96% reported compliance with PPE guidelines. Reported sources of PPE information: 56.7% charge nurse, 67.3% the institutional COVID-19 website. Frequency of training was positively associated with understanding how to protect themselves and patients (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0-2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Few HCWs are willing to care for patients without PPE, and therefore we should aim for resiliency in the PPE supply chain. EDs should consider multiple communication strategies, including a website with concise information and enhanced training for key personnel, particularly the charge nurse. Attention to frequency in HCW training may be key to improve confidence in protecting themselves and patients. Findings can be leveraged by EDs to implement effective PPE training.