ABSTRACT
AIM: To assess heat stroke and heat exhaustion occurrence and response during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, registry-based study describes and compares the characteristics of patients between the months of July and September in 2019 and 2020. Factors affecting heat stroke and heat exhaustion were statistically analyzed. Cramér's V was calculated to determine the effect size for group comparisons. We also investigated the prevalence of mask wearing and details of different cooling methods. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between 2019 and 2020. In both years, in-hospital mortality rates just exceeded 8%. Individuals >65 years old comprised 50% of cases and non-exertional onset (office work and everyday life) comprised 60%-70%, respectively. The recommendations from the Working Group on Heat Stroke Medicine given during the coronavirus disease pandemic in 2019 had a significant impact on the choice of cooling methods. The percentage of cases, for which intravascular temperature management was performed and cooling blankets were used increased, whereas the percentage of cases in which evaporative plus convective cooling was performed decreased. A total of 49 cases of heat stroke in mask wearing were reported. CONCLUSION: Epidemiological assessments of heat stroke and heat exhaustion did not reveal significant changes between 2019 and 2020. The findings suggest that awareness campaigns regarding heat stroke prevention among the elderly in daily life should be continued in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In the future, it is also necessary to validate the recommendations of the Working Group on Heatstroke Medicine.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate in older adults; therefore, it is important for medical institutions to take measures to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. This study aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and the effectiveness of infection control measures. METHODS: This study had a cross-sectional component and a prospective cohort component. The cross-sectional component comprised an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody survey among HCWs at a medical center in Saitama City, Japan. In the prospective cohort component, HCWs at the same medical center were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies monthly over a 3-month period (May to July 2020) to assess the effectiveness of infection prevention measures, including personal protective equipment use. All participants in the cohort study also participated in the antibody survey. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody (measured using Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2) positivity based on whether participants were engaged in COVID-19-related medical care. Other risk factors considered included occupational category, age, and sex. RESULTS: In total, 607 HCWs participated in the antibody survey and 116 doctors and nurses participated in the cohort study. Only one of the 607 participants in the survey tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants in the cohort study were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative at baseline and remained antibody negative. Engaging in the care of COVID-19 patients did not increase the risk of antibody positivity. During the study period, a total of 30 COVID-19 in-patients were treated in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The infection control measures in the hospital protected HCWs from nosocomially acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection; thus, HCWs should engage in COVID-19-related medical care with confidence provided that they adhere to infectious disease precautions.