Evaluating Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Polymerase Chain Reaction Nasal Screening as a Tool for Antimicrobial Stewardship.

INTRODUCTION: Initiation of broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics is common when infection is suspected in hospitalized adults. The benefits of early utilization of effective antibiotics are well documented. However, the negative effects of inappropriate antibiotic use have led to antimicrobial stewardship mandates. Recent data demonstrate the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal screening to steward anti-MRSA empiric antibiotics in pneumonia. We hypothesize that MRSA PCR nasal swabs would also be effective to rule out other MRSA infection to effectively limit unnecessary antibiotics for any infectious source. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of all adult patient encounters from October 2019-July 2021 with MRSA PCR nasal testing. We then reviewed all charts to evaluate for the presence of infections based on source cultures results, as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were calculated from 2 × 2 contingency tables. RESULTS: Among all patients with MRSA nasal screening, 1189 patients had any infection. Prevalence of MRSA nasal carriage among patients screened was 12%. Prevalence of MRSA infection among all infections was 7.5%. MRSA nasal swabs demonstrated a negative predictive value of 100% for MRSA urinary tract infection, 97.9% for MRSA bacteremia, 97.8% for MRSA pneumonia, 92.1% for MRSA wound infection, and 96.6% for other MRSA infections. Overall, MRSA PCR nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 68.5%, specificity of 90.1%, positive predictive value of 23.7%, and negative predictive value of 98.5% for any infections. CONCLUSIONS: MRSA PCR nasal swabs have a high negative predictive value for all infections. Our data support the use of MRSA PCR nasal swabs to rule out MRSA infection and thereby allow early de-escalation of MRSA coverage in hospitalized patients requiring empiric antibiotics. Implementation of MRSA screening could decrease antibiotic-associated morbidity, resistance, and costs. More studies should be conducted to validate these results and support these findings.

Trauma Incidence During the New Jersey COVID-19 Stay-At-Home Order: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Given the early surge of COVID-19 in New Jersey (NJ), a statewide executive order (EO) to stay-at-home was instituted on March 22, 2020. We hypothesized that the EO would result in a decreased number of trauma admissions, length of stay, and resources utilized in trauma patients at NJ trauma centers. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, retrospective, multicenter study, trauma registries at three level one trauma centers in NJ were queried from March 22 to June 14 in 2020 and compared to the same timeframe the year prior. Epidemiological and clinical data were obtained including demographics, select preexisting conditions, mechanism of injury, injury severity score, resources utilized, and outcomes. RESULTS: 1859 trauma patients were evaluated during the EO versus 2201 the year prior. During the EO, trauma patients were less likely to be transferred from another hospital (21% versus 29% P < 0.05), more likely to have a penetrating mechanism (16% versus 12% P < 0.05), were equally likely to require a procedure (P = 0.44) and had similar injury severity score (5 [interquartile range [IQR] 1-9] versus 5 [IQR 1-9], P = 0.73). There was no significant difference in ventilator days (0 [IQR 0-1] versus 0 [IQR 0-2] P = 0.08), intensive care unit days (2 [IQR 0-4] versus 2 [IQR 0-3] P = 0.99), or length of stay (2 [IQR 1-5] versus 2 [IQR 1-6] P = 0.73). Patients were more likely to be sent home than to rehabilitation or long-term acute care hospital during the EO (81% versus 78%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 2020 COVID-19 EO was associated with a significantly different epidemiology with a higher rate of penetrating injury during the EO, and similar volume of injured patients evaluated.

Tracheostomy is Safe in Patients with Prolonged Intubation After Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy improves outcomes for critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Data are limited on the use and benefit of tracheostomies for intubated, critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. During the surge in COVID 19 infections in metropolitan New York/New Jersey, our hospital cared for many COVID-19 patients who required prolonged intubation. This study describes the outcomes in COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy. METHODS: We present a case series of patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy at a single institution. Tracheostomies were performed on patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation beyond 3 wk. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and ventilator settings prior to tracheostomy were reviewed. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time on mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Fifteen COVID-19 patients underwent tracheostomy at an average of 31 d post intubation. Two patients (13%) died. Half of our cohort was liberated from the ventilator (8 patients, 53%), with an average time to liberation of 14 ± 6 d after tracheostomy. Among patients off mechanical ventilation, 5 (63%) had their tracheostomies removed prior to discharge. The average intensive care length of stay was 47 ± 13 d (range 29-74 d) and the average hospital stay was 59 ± 16 d (range 34-103 d). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports promising outcomes in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure and need for prolonged ventilation who undergo tracheostomy during their hospitalization. Further research is warranted to establish appropriate indications for tracheostomy in COVID-19 and confirm outcomes.

Proximity to international airports and early transmission of COVID-19 in the United States-An epidemiological assessment of the geographic distribution of 490,000 cases.

BACKGROUND: Identifying hotspots in a pandemic is essential for early containment. In the context of the rapid global dissemination of the Covid-19 pandemic, describing viral infection rates in relation to international air travel early during the pandemic can help inform future public health policy. The objective of this study is to determine whether proximity to an international airport predicted higher infection rates during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States (US). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the authors examined the incidence of Covid-19 in areas near US international airports in the first weeks after detection of Covid-19 in all 50 states, using publicly available county-level incidence of Covid-19 data. They performed a multiple regression to determine the relative effects of population density and air traffic in the Counties Containing Airports (CCA) and the number of Covid-19 cases, and determined the odds of Covid-19 in CCA compared to the rest of the state. RESULTS: Multiple regression analysis revealed that air traffic was significantly correlated with Covid-19 cases during the initial phase of pandemic while population density was not significantly correlated. Three weeks into the pandemic, the pooled odds of Covid-19 cases in CCA was 2.66 (95% CI [2.64, 2.68], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The counties in the US containing international airports represented initial hotspots for Covid-19 transmission. Early public health containment efforts focused on these areas may help mitigate disease transmission during future similar novel respiratory virus epidemics.

Resuming Dental and Craniomaxillofacial Surgical Missions During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines and Recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive review article. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines and recommendations for how to safely resume dental and craniomaxillofacial STSMs. The following considerations will be discussed: the need for extensive collaboration between organizations and local leadership, the importance of COVID-19 testing, use and management of personal protective equipment, team selection and training, social distancing protocols, and criteria for patient and case selection. METHODS: A literature review was completed, identifying resources and current data regarding the safe resumption clinical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: At this time, there are no protocols developed regarding the safe resumption of STSMs. Primary resources, including the CDC, WHO, and FDA should be closely monitored so that developed protocols from these recommendations reflect the latest information. CONCLUSION: This paper outlines general considerations and recommendations for dentists, oral health specialists, and craniomaxillofacial surgeons seeking to safely resume STSMs. These recommendations are designed to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19 by reinforcing social distancing protocols, reviewing criteria for patient and case selections, encouraging collaboration between organizations and local leadership, and team training. These guidelines should be tailored to fit the needs of each individual mission while keeping the safety as the main objective.